Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 20 July 22 >

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator, conditional on cleanup. After looking at the debate at Mega, and the deletion review, I am conditionally withdrawing this nomination, with the idea that in the very near future it is both expanded and more properly sourced. As the article stands now, it should fail; however, in my opinion, for whatever that is worth, there seems to be enough behind this person that would allow someone with a better knowledge of his history and what he means to the High-IQ world to put together an article worthy of Wikipedia. If that is not done, then this article should end up here again. – Avi 06:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ronald K. Hoeflin

Seems to fail notability. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society -- Avi 07:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: please note presence of following single-purpose accounts here: May-Tzu, SOUTH, Sol.delune, TKRIB, Aye-Aye. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Odd that you didn't mention the other new users Byrgenwulf, DaturaS, Massmato; Could there be a deletionist agenda here? -- Michael C. Price talk 05:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete probable vanity, definitely not very notable as it stands. Byrgenwulf 11:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Byrgenwulf as nn vanity. Buck ets ofg✐ 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Brian 64.12.116.65 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Dr Hoeflin is indeed notable. He has been written up in various books, mainstream magazines, and has also been the subject of television interviews. He is one of the pioneers of high-end psychometrics. He was the first -- or perhaps second -- person to create an IQ test that would reliably measure IQ above 3 standard deviations above the norm. These tests were carefully and extensively normed and received widespread media attention. This is especially important because in the area of very high-range psychometrics -- which can perhaps shed much insight into the nature of minds and IQ in general -- there is virtually no-one at work.

    For the past ten years, he has been at work writing a book which selectively filters and organizes philosophical concepts. The first two volumes of this book, "Encyclopedia of Categories", have been published. They are almost 700 pages each, and contain much original and noteworthy thought.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.65 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 15:30:48I have just created a user account. Brian Promking 15:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

    • If that is true, then you should be able to provide us with source citations for those books and magazine articles. As things stand, you have cited no sources and the article cites no sources. Uncle G 18:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
There is a long account of an interview with Dr Hoeflin in "The Know-it-all", a book published by Simon & Schuster in 2004, which was widely reviewed, as I recall. A one-page excerpt is here: http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0743250605&id=lveguMcFrokC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=%22prometheus+society%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=IhkW8XKtUsVh5K-bxdcpWCykR2s Promking 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Dr. Hoeflin has been a biographee in Marquis *Who's Who In the World* and Marquis *Who's Who In America* for many years. May-Tzu — Preceding unsigned comment added by May-Tzu ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn self-published DaturaS 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep What's the point of an open-source encyclopaedia (so to speak), if it's also open-source-delete? You can extend and delete everything there is, as I'm sure you'd find suitable objectors to almost everything there is. Beyond deleting obscenities, what's the use of deletion? Saving something? What exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.181.101 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 13:21
  • Keep But DELETION will doubtless be done, and by some hip-hop high school student who has been a sysop for a few months. Here is the State of Wiki re deletions: "Despite excellent efforts put forth by many of you (and I thank you for the help), the Mega Society article has been deleted. I see that the Hoeflin article has also now been nominated for deletion, and I suspect that this is suggestive of a trend. Coincidentally I was talking with Stephen Wolfram a month or two ago and he commented that he had noted that Wikipedia articles were actually growing shorter on average. When one reads "deletionist" credo on Wikipedia, the main reason given for deleting articles is that too many articles tend to junk up lists. In other words, the world is too complex to fit into a neat categorization, so let's just prune the world to fit. This is reminiscent of attempts to "reform" language. In the end the reason given for deleting the Mega Society entry was that people had never heard of it. So slowly Wikipedia is regressing to the mean, which is something like an eighth grade reading level." Perhaps everything be deleted except of course any hip hop articles. And this must be done ASAP obviously, to protect the Wiki notability. SOUTH 18:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Excessive new lines removed. Kimchi.sg 19:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
While I understand your frustration, your blanket charecterizations of all sysops as teenage hip-hop aficianados is insulting, immature, and patently false. I also note from my associations with various High-IQ societies that there is often a correlation between their members and an inflated sense of self. Not all of us whom G-d has blessed with IQ's significantly above 150 need to broadcast it to the world and preen. Anyway, innate intelligence is more often a gift (although honed and sharpened by use) and not something we should use to foster a sense of superiority. Au contraire, it should engender humility. That being said, we have standards. For better or for worse, and in this I mourn our society's fall with you, hoi polloi have ascribed a noteriety and notability to people with the ability to run together monosyllabic, mispronounced, bastardized words to some rhythmic structure, and shower them with money and fame. Is it something we should be proud of? No. At this point in history, does that phenomenon exist? Yes. I daresay that the author in question here would be recognized less, be it his work, his appearance, or any other element, than the #500 rapper on some chart. He fails notability in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others. Is this “fair”? Doubtful, but it is the case. Also, my personal opinion is that Mensa is notable for its size and its scope, regardless of the immaturity of many of its individual members. Mega, Giga, Promethues, and the like have nowhere near the membership, name recognition, world-wide dispersion, or influence of Mensa, and all of them, as they stand now, likely fail our standards. -- Avi 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Thank you Avi. I couldn't have put it better myself, and what you said echoes my sentiments exactly. I would just like to add that I would love to know where that bit that SOUTH quoted came from, since it seems like a message sent out to solicity "meatpuppetry". Byrgenwulf 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The mere existence of a single-member IQ society where the member has an IQ of, say, 250 (even as measured as a child) would be highly notable. And how else would such a society gain recognition (as if it needs it to be worthy of note) if encyclopedias summarily dismiss it? (BTW, I was not calling all admins "hip hop kids.") SOUTH 19:31, 21 July 2006
  • Perhaps looking up the meaning of the word society could clear some things up here. There is no such thing as a "one member society". A person with the highest ever recorded IQ might warrant inclusion (I don't see anyone wanting to get rid of vos Savant, for example) but that example is ridiculous. Byrgenwulf 19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
If it were notable, let someone else write about the organisation first. We are not, and cannot, be the first to report the existance of any organisation or notable person; that is the job of the newspaper or magazine, not the encyclopedia. Kimchi.sg 19:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Some people have written about the organisation first. I'd show Kimchi.sg the refs but some teenage hip-hop sysop has deleted them!! -- Michael C. Price talk 21:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
You've helped author articles about a fishing area in Singapore, and various roads there, and another contributor wrote articles about various small state roads in Washington State. I'm sure that there are far better fishing areas to be found elsewhere in South Asia, and here in the US as well. So why is yours notable? Asked not out of disrespect but to learn. Brian 64.12.116.65 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Yes, but this article seems to disscuss an subject of importance —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 18:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep
1) The issue of "junking up lists" seems of little relevance on the internet, where one doesn't have to worry about huge printing costs, huge volumes of paper, etc. One could look at the internet as an electronic junkpile or treasure trove (dependig on one's perspective) of lists - i.e. "links" allowing readers to follow webs of association as far as they want.
2) Proponents of "delete" cite issues of "notability", a term which has also been acknowledged to be ill-defined, its interpretations subject to the biases/whims of the writer or judge.
2a) Often, the ostensible (surface) motivation behind a decision is merely a mask, hiding deeper, truer motivations. This leads to isues of "political Correctness". Our society has indoctrinated us to believe in PCness as a virtue and means towards ultimately greater tolerance and humanity; doubters have been coerced into publically pretending belief in the creed. The underlying dogma - that we really are *fundamentally* equal (vs. "equal in legal rights") assuages many people's fears. We all know that some people currently seem smarter and/or more talented than us; at the same time, a part of us fights against acknowledging that levels of ability in some areas may be largely innate. We can save face when looking in the miror by saying "He and I are innately equal; he merely benefited by more opportunities, lucked out in the crap shoot of life."
Persons and groups whose existence and/or work threatens the ego-massaging opiate of PCness are due for deletion. Obviously, giants such as Jenson (with lists of respected books and articles in major professional journals) can't be deleted - at least not yet.....but one can start with lesser-known workers of a similarly threatening mindset (ie. those who would haul all the Procrustean beds to the l of invalid ideas). Sol.delune 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)sol.delune reply
Comment: This user tried to remove prior comments from this AfD. This is his 8th edit; the account was registered 4 days ago and has only edited in this AfD and the Mega Society AfD. Kimchi.sg 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment 2: Excessive line breaks and spacing removed for clarity. Kimchi.sg 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - many claims but all unsourced, fails our key test of verifiability. Kimchi.sg 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V, unless properly sourced. Dpv 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: How is Hoeflin less "notable" than the Miami Beach Senior High School - just one of many urban high schools with the list of celebrity grads (scattered over decades) that one would expect from many large, urban schools? Is Wikipedia "cluttered" with info on the thousands of urban high schools in this country - most of which are of interest only to their students, staff and alumni? Does such information possess the potential scientific or cultural importance that would render it valid as "encyclopedia material"? Hoeflin's work, although perhaps known by few, at least has import to scholars investigating high-end psychometrics (whether or not they agree with his findings, the findings themselves may have seminal value.) Sol.delune 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)sol.delune reply
Comment: Excessive newlines removed, again. Please don't hit Enter at the end of every line; the words will wrap automatically at the end of a line, unlike typewriter style; also, do start your comments the same way as everyone else. Not starting your comments following convention is flaunting your newbie status. Kimchi.sg 21:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
"Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers" --= Jimbo Wales. Brian 70.234.150.40 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Newcomers need to learn the conventions here as well. Teaching others is not equivalent to bullying. Kimchi.sg 04:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per eagle and this [1] article. Themindset 21:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I would say more if I thought the decision would be based the merits of the discussion rather than just a headcount, but since it seems such judgements are just votes it seems pointless to debate more. -- Michael C. Price talk 11:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I see that the "notable" initiator of recent IQ related deletes Byrgenwulf is himself a member of the Brights with an elaborated entry in Wiki, as well as one for almost each "notable" member of the Brights, among whome even a certain Teller the Magician. Now, how would it be to cut the crap, and move on to deleting his beloved articles straight away. I mean, I can do it on my own, just substitute the content with whatever. Perhaps people like Byrgenwulf can realize their own actions only when being subject to an equal themselves. Stevan Damjanovic
Stevan, anything you say as an anon will be ignored if the closing admin follows the Mega Society's deletion process of just counting the non-anon votes. Of course head counting itself at the end of an AfD is a clear violation of Wiki policy -- but it seems an established illegal practice. I am going to take things to a higher level, but in the meantime I strongly urge you to create a user account and talk page. Byrgenwulf is a menance to Wikipedia and needs banning before he does any further damage as the self-styled leader of the anti-IQ Jihad -- you can be most effective in restoring sanity by completing the login and registration process yourself. -- Michael C. Price talk 14:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-styled leader of the anti-IQ Jihad?!? Mr Price, please substantiate that accusation. I think the user you are addressing in the message above is a far greater menace than I, looking at the vandalism/"experimenting" he has just performed on an article (see below). I'm not an anti-IQ Jihad -indeed, the more I think about it, the more I would like to see an article on high IQ subculture; I merely do not wish to see Wikipedia abused as a repository for arbitrary information. And I certainly don't think I need to be banned. I have done nothing wrong! This article was not nominated by me, nor even a "collaborator", but instead by Avi, who judging from his talk page seems to be a respected member of the Wikipedia community. Indeed, there have been 5 "IQ-related" nominations of late, of which two came from me, two from Avi, and one (the Mega Society) from Jefffire. All I have done is vote delete in all of them, which has obviously earnt the wrath of many people. Byrgenwulf 15:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks Michael, I have cretaed an account. With regard to Byrgenwulf's suggestions, he'd do well to keep them up himself. If there is arbitrary information, let him point it out. As it is, he just blindly goes for deletions. StevanMD 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Replace "as the self-styled leader" with in "in the vanguard" as you wish. -- Michael C. Price talk 15:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply


  • Comment Furthermore, even the very name of the organization to which Byrgenwulf belongs, the Brights, is seriously misleading, as it indicates a group of bright people, yet based on what their own site says: "A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview". Stevan Damjanovic
Note: this user has just vandalised the brights article here, replacing vast tracts of with what I think are extracts from St Augustine. Obviously proving a point. Mr Damjanovic, my organisational affiliations have nothing to do with the merits of this debate whatsoever. The Brights Movement has nothing to do with IQ. What you think of its name is irrelevant here. That is not a "beloved" article of mine: I've never edited it, and barely read it until earlier when I was looking at the vandalism. If you don't like it, fix it; if you think it merits deletion, try. Attempting to "discredit" me, as this seems to be an attempt to do, is irrelevant here, and I didn't even put this article up for deletion anyway. Byrgenwulf 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Note:In order to accuse me of vandalising an entry, that entry would need to be vandalised. As it happens, your society's entry is up and running without any damage to it. On the other hand, I have initiated the deletion procedure for it. StevanMD 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I see you have. Nonetheless anyone following the link above can see the St Augustine (I have to admire the irony, by the way; it is St Augustine, isn't it?) which was inserted and subsequently reverted. I do not regard it as "my" society, and I am deliberately staying away from that deletion debate, as I have the utmost confidence that that article will stand on its own merits. Nonetheless, I do not think that an article in Wikipedia has much to do with organisation's actual merit, so I'm not particularly concerned. Byrgenwulf 17:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
No, I was just demonstrating the principle that guides Wiki. Anyone can get anything deleted without real ground or qualifications to decide. Had I vandalised it, I wouldn't bother to restore it a minute later. StevanMD 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I understand, and while I don't think it is appropriate to use the system for "experiments" like this, I shall be watching with interest to see the outcome of that discussion. I don't think the Brights will be deleted, but let's see if you're right. As I say, I'm not getting involved, as I don't think I am neutral enough to participate. Byrgenwulf 18:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Indeed, it is Not appropriate. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thanks. - Quiddity 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I did not disrupt it. The point is that it's already disrupted. StevanMD 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:V Massmato 15:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Kimchi.sg; quite a walled garden we have here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • merge, or weak keep. He is listed at those sites/groups as a founder. [2] [3] [4], and I've heard of these groups years ago whilst investigating Mensa, so the groups themselves are sufficiently notable. -- Quiddity 18:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment the sites mentioned appear to fall far short of WP:BIO's "significant press coverage" criterion. "I've heard of X" is not a reason to keep X; I've heard of no end of unencyclopedic things and so has every other editor. Only a few editors think that's grounds for automatic inclusion, but policy does not agree. It's been said above that the subject appears in "Marquis's Who's Who". If that's true, and if the work is a reliable source, the article can readily be edited to meet WP:BIO. (Although I have to say that the " submit your own entry" option on the website does make me wonder ...) Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I meant "I've heard of" to imply that these arent just spam-lure creations, or similar. I've changed my "vote" to prefer a merge, though to where i don't know. High IQ society maybe? He has started a lot of them (which is indeed motivationally suspicious (pure financial greed?), but not a reason to exclude from wikipedia.) - Quiddity 20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Angus McLellan -- walled garden filled with WP:VAIN. -- NORTH talk 22:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

COMMENT for guidance for participants and admin. Please note that procedure states that notability is NOT an issue that deletion is concerned with. Also I don't know why everyone's voting since these are also NOT relevant.

Notability:

most of this discussion is concerned with Notability whereas the deletion guidelines clearly state the grounds for deletion are WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:COPY, none of which are in much doubt.

Voting:

Voting is not in accordance with the following guidelines:
deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing. - Wikipedia:Deletion policy
To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion
On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion
Another volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the AFD discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article. -- Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure
An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". -- Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure

-- Michael C. Price talk 00:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, Michael, if the subject is not notable, it is grounds for a speedy deletion, which means once tagged with something like {{ db-bio}}, any admin can make a decision about said article, and if they feel it isn't notable, delete it out of hand. So, running this through WP:AfD is actually giving the article some benefit of the doubt. -- Avi 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

That's not what speedy deletion says: a case of divergence between procedure and practice. -- Michael C. Price talk 06:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Speedy send you here: Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. Since I agree that an assertion of notability has been made, the article is following WP:AfD. -- Avi 06:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The claims of vanity are also false. The article was not created by the subject himself. Speedy deletion is only an option when it is absolutely clear that the AfD would succeed. It is clear that that is not the case (look at the keep votes), so speedy delete is not appropriate. -- Michael C. Price talk 06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Which is exactly why it is here. My point is simply that notability is ALSO subject to AfD, when there is doubt, but it is discussed more clearly discussed in CSD. -- Avi 06:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Non-notable "High IQ" guy. -- GWO
  • Comment "GWO" self-contradicts; "high IO guy" is notable in itself, as I patiently pointed out above. SOUTH 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • SOUTH, I realise you're new here and still getting a "feel" for the etiquette, as it were. But please read WP:CIVILITY; in particular, using the edit summary to make comments about users isn't really being very civil. In particular, you said [5] that GWO's delete comment is "not notable". Whatever you think of his argument, it is nonetheless just as "notable" in this discussion as your own arguments, and the edit summary is not the place to express opinions on how you see it. Thank you. Byrgenwulf 13:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I fail to see how describing someone's argument as "non-notable" is uncivil -- the description was applied to the assessment made, not to the user, and, furthermore, seemed IMO to be valid: it was contradictory. Although it does help show what a "load of old bollocks" the notion of notability is; it is now used a subjective, meaningless phrase that is bandied around when ever someone doesn't like something. -- Michael C. Price talk 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. After reading this lengthly debate and checking out the article it seems to me that this "high IQ guy" must warrent an article. Not because he is a high IQ guy but merely because this stub is quite good even though it is weak on the WP:VER side of things. Certianly this is not a vanity page but it is a weak article overall considering its lack of sources and is in dire need of them. Should this article not gather proper citations later i think it should be reconsidered.- (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 14:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. You have got to be kidding. GregorB 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Eagle and the 1999 Esquire magazine reference, this person is noteworthy. [6] RFerreira 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I find it amusing that you will delete entries based upon a supposed lack of "notability". How can you define such a nebulous thing? Psuedouridine is a rather small niche molecule that only biochemists interested in tRNA synthesis would have any knowledge of. My remark goes to your approach to a supposed "open" community forum, where anyone may post information for others to peruse. What I think you have by introducing "deletions" are a group of petty people that will, in effect, enact a New Speak effect upon your webpage--eventually obviating it, as a more useful and less restrictive online encyclopedia comes along. I will cite one example of this and you can mull this over amongst yourselves. There is a very notable person, Ronald K. Hoeflin, former contributor to OMNI magazine and inventor of intelligence testing at high levels of deviation from the norm. He is also affiliated with Marilyn vos Savant. She too is notable for her high IQ and parade magazine contributions. Soon you will be routing all those persons form your webpage, because some snippy high-school student or misanthrope is offended that they aren't a genius, or just for malice. Anyway, that aside, the point is Ronald has been designated as a possible entry for deletion. I don't intend to get into your system and attempt to play by "your" rules. I want you to know that they are flawed. There was no common consensus on the removal of the entry for "Mega Society" -- yet you allow ample space on your webpage for people to engage in family tree history and so forth. I suggest you review that recent case and tell me if it makes sense to you. And is it true that the final decision for the removal of the entry was placed into the hands of an 11th grader? No wisdom to age correlation I suppose? I would say all of wikipedia is under siege by modern day internet grafittists that will remove information for whim and add what they and their peer group find trendy---where is the factuality then? I for one can find other sources for information, however for your enterprise here at Wikipedia, I see it slipping. But as a professor, I feel inclined to point to this as an example to students and colleagues that your webpage is not as valuable or serious source of information as previously thought. If I cannot rely on you to report the whole truth, bad and good, then how can I count on you at all? It should be up to the readers and consensus editing to articles to enrich them.... but to remove them outright? Ronald K. Hoeflin does exist, and he is a philosopher too. Will you be removing Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, Socrates, and Plato? I just see no end in sight to your silly WebPages system...you eventually will self-reduce to a compendium of 8th grade trivial pop-culture and not a vast source of knowledge of the larger spectrum of humanity. TKRIB
  • Keep Although Dr. Hoeflin had predecessors (Christopher Harding, Kevin Langdon), he more than any other living person has advanced the state of the art of high range intelligence testing. This makes him notable and easily qualifies him for an article in Wikipedia. Canon 18:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Admins - please take note of the fact that there is a lot of shilling going on in this AfD. Canon is one of the Mega Sciety's three officers and Michael C. Price is also a member. As involved parties, they should remove themselves from the discussion due to promotional interests. DaturaS 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, if these gentlemen declare their interests, then they are not doing anything wrong. It is only misleading or shilling if one pretends to be a "concerned member of the public" or some other form of uninvolved third party. Many participants here are obviously members of various IQ societies, and have never attempted to obscure this. Byrgenwulf 20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I have never attempted to hide my membership status (and Noesis is available on-line, so I couldn't anyway). As for whether I have to actively declare anything, well do I have to declare I have a Physics BSc/MSc before editing a physics article? I note that my user page and sig at least display my name, which is more than can be said of DaturaS's one-word user page. -- Michael C. Price talk 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but fill out the stub with more facts. Aye-Aye 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep no need to add anything - see above "keeps" Cadwgan Gedrych 21:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I started this page, and I can ensure you I'm not Ron Hoeflin, friends with Ron Hoeflin, or enemies with Ron Hoeflin. Has Wikipedia jumped the shark? Galizur 01:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 07:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Tribalwar

No citations. WP:WEB and not a "place" of historial record to keep internal events. -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

From New Users

  • Keep same as above 24.12.146.151 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep! Same as above... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.185.121 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 04:09:01 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tribalwar was cited from the Tribes article previously, and the citations appear to have been deleted (by replacing the link with the word alone. 68.147.242.17 05:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • User Shane is attempting to 66.41.43.67 04:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • [Added by Data] User nominating this page for deletion is acting solely on a personal vendetta. The TribalWar community is 15,786 members and 7,248,464 forum posts of Internet history. It is the sole remaining community web site for the Earthsiege/Starsiege/Tribes universe, and has been THE source for Tribes news and resources since 1999. In short, there is no viable reason to delete this page.
  • (personal attacks removed) 71.196.158.238
  • Keep. [Added by old_skul] This AFD is a personal vendetta against the site and should be summarily discounted. Although the article could use some cleanup, it's clearly a page in history for many people and serves as a historical record of many of the social interactions that make internet forums generally interesting from a social standpoint. It would be detrimental to Wikipedia to remove this article. Old skul 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. [Added by DwarfVader] As the page describes Tribalwar has been a part of internet history, much in the same way that Something Awful, and the person named Maddox. Both have articles writing on Wiki, just as Tribalwar does. If Tribalwar were to be deleted for the reasons stated above those entries would have to be removed as well as they fall EXACTLY under the same qualifications that Tribalwar does. Bugs or Shane recently created his own unfourtunate drama over at Tribalwar, that resulted in him making an ass out of himself. He blames Tribalwar for this very incident and thus has choosen to attempt to have this article deleted in an effort to "get back at Tribalwar."--- DwarfVader 04:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. TribalWar is a relevant staple of the internet and gaming community. It has referential ties to other similar websites such as Something Awful and 4Chan, and has several notable "claims to fame" such as interaction with CNN and Tribes community-specific LAN events. TribalWar is the last resource for any Tribes/Starseige/Earthsiege content and continues to renew its content to compete with modern gaming resources. This proposed deletion is a purely personal and spiteful event due to TribalWar forum mockery/embarrasment of Shane "Bugs5382" Froebel, and further discussion is a waste of Wikipedia resources. As noted by TribalWar Site Administrator Anthony "Rayn" Maio, Shane Froebel was a TribalWar staff member who was fired from the site several years ago, and this proposed deletion is only part of his ongoing vendetta against the community. -- Fboftwfame 04:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Same as above
  • Keep Same as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncleslappy ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep User shane's actions are not WP:AGF due to an off site personal attack. WP:NPA IamZombie 05:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Same as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.54.181 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep Same as above stated reasons. To erase a wikipedia article based on the temper tantrums of a single person would be to violate the reason for Wiki being as great and comprehensive as it is.-- 24.166.185.5 05:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Neither WP:WEB nor WP:NPOV have been violated by Tribalwar's entry. This delete nomination is a mean spirited counter-attack by Shane on an organization he has a well-know vandetta against. Shane, if you wish to become a Wiki moderator as your personal page suggests, you might not want to engage in this blantent sort of childish behavior in the future. Tribalwar isn't the only place you'll get fired from as an admin. 67.174.18.197 05:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. TW is one of the most popular forums on the web and as such deserves a Wikipedia page. I'm quite perplexed that Shane has nominated this for deletion, to be quite blunt. Shane, why not just help make it better, as others have been spending their time doing?— Tommyjb 05:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per all reasons listed. TW is an important forum and has made a few notable contributions to internet culture. Not to mention Shane is doing this for all the wrong reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.153.175 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep Same as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.94.234 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep I think it should be kept. I also think it does need to be slightly rewritten. Helot 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep By WP:WEB guidelines, a website is fit for an article if it has appeared in a major outside source. Various outside sources have mentioned www.tribalwar.com due to the internet meme All Your Base. Also by the same, http://pc.gamezone.com, as well as a multitude of other gaming-related newssites have mentioned Tribalwar in relation to the Tribes franchise. These qualify it under WP:WEB. WP:NPOV only comes into play when there is a debate over any information given in the article. This is easily remidied by editing, not deletion. Xpdnc 05:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Tribalwar is a great forum and has a lot of users. It deserves a wiki. Shane's personal problems with the site triggered this and that is not fair to Tribalwar. This AFD request is an abuse of Wikipedia 67.80.77.53 06:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Unseemly personal issues aside, www.tribalwar.com is deserving of a wikipedia article for several reasons. Firstly, due to the fact that it is directly linked to the popularization of the All Your Base phenomenon. The AYB movie that was cited in Newsweek as being one of the first incidences of homespun viral media was developed from original tribalwar forum content, and was posted there for the first time. The site and its content are therefore a legitimate part of history from an internet content perspective, and may serve as a reference for viral content history and research. Secondly, the CNN hotlinking episode, although minor, is a footnote that serves as a useful cautionary tale for internet content providers with respect to the practice of hotlinking. The many thousand people who were subject to the incident may or may not be aware of its background, and considering the sizable population of those affected, it is entirely justifiable to think that they may want a record of what really happened at that time. As such, the site is notable. However, it still admittedly requires some editing and provision of direct sources. LogRoller 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ^ same as above ^— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.235.15 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep one of the first great gaming sites and a Tribes franchise icon. Its evolved more beyond it original roots, it just needs updates. 69.108.239.32 10:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A large part of the tribes community for six years and one of the major discussion sites on the web. With a great history that should be documented on wikipedia. 69.169.220.162 10:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Same as above
  • Keep As linked earlier, the person who marked this has made threats stating that he would keep re-marking every 10 months. Coupled with the fact that it was done in response to an off-site joke, I believe that it violates WP:HA as it is clearly harassment and bullying. Xpdnc 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Vote stuck out. Please don't vote keep more than once. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • New users please note: Arguments about vendettas, or about other subjects having Wikipedia articles, are irrelevant. Your best arguments to demonstrate that this article should be kept are to cite sources. Cite magazine feature articles, books, papers in journals, documentaries, and so forth that are about this web site, and that are from sources independent of the web site. Sources are a fundamental thing here at Wikipedia. Arguing about how "great" a web site is does not address the charge, made below, that this article is unverifiable (in contravention of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy) or original research (in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy). If it cannot be shown — if you don't cite sources to show — that this article is verifiable and that it does not comprise a wholly new history and description of the web site that has not aready been published by a reliable source outside of Wikipedia, then all the "It's great. You must keep it." arguments in the world won't prevent its deletion. Please cite sources. Uncle G 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:Thank you for being the one Wikipedian who provided valuable information to this discussion. TribalWar has a multitude of members prepared to correct any problems with the TribalWar Wiki, and would appreciate insight into any issues with the information, (like you have provided) rather than attacks at membership/credibility/so forth. Fboftwfame 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KeepSame as above—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.215.75 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 12:34:39 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it has valuable info. -- TimBoston 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep-Scoobs— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.81.10.2 ( talk • contribs)
  • KeepSame as above - Paladin-5
  • KEEP [eVo Superman] - TribalWar is a legendary gaming site and will go down in the annals of WWW history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.227.161.167 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 17:34:04 (UTC)
  • Keep - The major complaints with this page seem to involve content that shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia. The discussion page would have been the appropriate place to talk about removing those sections. Also, note that there does seem to be an effort in the discussion page, including a temp page, attempting to clean the article, contrary to GassyGuy's claim above. Finally, on the specifics of notability, the CNN hotlinking issue is still cited as a reason never to hotlink anything. -- BlueSoxSWJ 03:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.88.218 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-22 00:45:18 (UTC)
  • Keep This article really needs cleanup, but I think its notable enough to stay. This AFD is very ugly considering its origins and reflects the worst of Wikipedia. Mrcfjf 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are no policies that warrant deleting this article. -- Goatwarrior 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article goes against so many Wikipedia standards that I won't even bother to list them all They have been posted already, anyway. -- 24.95.157.245 22:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is a highly dangerous precedent to set to delete content on a bad faith nomination from a user with bias. Surely this is a small, tangential article but the intent of the nominator must be taken into to account. All the article needs is a major clean up.-- Rayn21 16:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteTribalwar claims alot but provides practically no references to back it up, going against Wikipedia standards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.17.5 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep Cleaning this article up a bit should be sufficient enough to bring it in line with WP:WEB and WP:NPOV. -- LX702 16:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

From established users

  • Keep. Tribalwar is fairly popular internet message-board. Has references comparable to other boards like 4chan. Addps4cat 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • No outside references. That doesn't gives it a WP:NPOV. -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • You're only trying to get the page deleted because everyone hates you on the forum. Please stop being such a child. Addps4cat 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Data's comment. User nominated the page due to an incident on the forum/forums IRC channel. Article has survived AFD nominations before, no reason for it to be deleted now, least of all because the user is mad. DemonWeb 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Has over 10k Google hits, seems notable but needs work and sources. Crazynas t 06:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per Crazynas. For the love of God, run it through cleanup and NPOV, and add outside references. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment should it get kept, there are portions of the article which will need to be rewritten in order to make sense. On first glance, the "notable events" section would appear to be in the wrong order for one thing. BigHaz 05:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with Rehaul. The user is clearly doing this for person reasons. The Tribalwar forums are more than notable by sheer population alone population, hits, and the relevancy to the Starsiege: Tribes community. The developers of Tribes: Vengeance seem to have spent a great deal of time there, though not to any positive affect since the game sold horribly. Far lesser fansites for less popular topics have been kept in the past. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, rather notable forum for being one of the starting points of the All Your Bases meme. Finding suitable sources should be a matter of a bit of effort. hateless 04:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I see almost nothing in terms of outside notability that makes this subject deserving of an article of its own. IronDuke 04:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Buck ets ofg✐ 13:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable website, alexa rank of 71000 Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Alexa is an absolutely terrible source for page visit information. Its toolbar is practically spyware. That is like referencing The Onion.-- 67.76.181.133 02:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup.Much more notable than many sites that have a wikipedia article.Needs some cleanup.-- Jsone 10:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:WEB. Mere mentions of a web-site in the media aren't enough; the text of the notability guideline is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (my emphasis). Sock flood not a good sign; see this thread on the tribalwar forums. More than usual, all keep votes here by new users should be discounted. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If we held that standard to [7], we'd have to delete every page there except maybe slashdot or SA. Just because it is written somewhere as policy doesn't mean it necessarily holds to every single page like law. Also you contend that these are sock puppets and yet the forum link you posted is ample evidence that one person didn't make all these comments or accounts. This isn't a vote btw, it's a discussion. Addps4cat 13:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I doubt the verity of your claim that Slashdot and SA are the only two Internet forums that are notable per WP:WEB, but that is not the main issue. I don't see how this article meets WP:WEB, which, by the way, is only a guideline, not "policy". The sole rationale provided for why this article meets WP:WEB above—that it has been covered by the press—is not sufficient, in my opinion. Note also that the presence of other articles on non-notable stuff on Wikipedia does not excuse or justify the presence of this article on a non-notable stuff. As regards sock puppets, you might have a technically valid point that these voters are not sockpuppets but meatpuppets. Consider my initial statement suitably amended as appropriate. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, I also have to second Kaustuv Chaudhuri's recommendation to discount all votes from new accounts. I also recommend to discount all votes where the voter makes a personal attack against the AfD nominator as part of the reasoning for his or her vote. -- TheFarix ( Talk) 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I agree that personal attacks on Shane should be kept out of this DISCUSSION (for the second time, this isn't a black and white VOTE sir). However, may supporters of the Tribalwar wikipedia article reacted in this manner because Shane's nomination to delete their article is based entirely on recent events on Tribalwar pertaining to images of his sister. Shane has even gone so far to try and negotiate with Tribalwar, reportedly stating "I will withdraw the Afd, if you can convince everyone, and I mean everyone on TW to post zero information on me and my family members ever again. That included everything: pictures, transcripts, images, and etc. everything. And that is the only compromise that I will give. One thing is broken, I will re-add it to AFD." I agree the Tribalwar wiki article might need some work to get it up to standards, but this is a gross misuse of Wikipedia administration tools by Shane. -Bonafide 67.174.18.197 14:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • At the risk of writing too much on a subject I don't really care about, I would like to point everyone to WP:SOAP. Please keep forum wars confined to the forums, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Comments about the nominator are not germane to the discussion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Whether the article should be kept or deleted is based on the merits of AfD nomination and the subsequent comments of other wikieditors. If the article has enough merit for inclusion in Wikipedia, then it will often survive the AfD process regardless of the nominator's motivations. With that said, most of the keep votes have either engaged in a personal attack against the nominator, outright declared this as a bad faith nomination, or both. None of these provide enough merit to keep the article by themselves. -- TheFarix ( Talk) 14:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, I have to disagree. Just because myself and others are new accounts dosen't mean that our opinions on the matter are not valid. IamZombie 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • New users like you are unlikely to base your keep comments on our policies and guidelines. Kimchi.sg 15:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • That's kind of an elitist attitude. Yes, I recently registered my account. That does not mean that I have not been using wikipedia as a source of information for a number of years now. I created my account so I could provide my opinion of the tribalwar entry. I find this type of accusation insulting. the tribalwar wiki entry has existed since March of 2005, (possibly earlier than that, but the edits only show the last 500). As to why I never created an account on the site, I never felt that any input I could provide would be of importantce, until now. This is a issue I felt strongly enough about to register and voice my opinion. IamZombie 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Note: User:IamZombie is a new users whose only edits so far have been to this AFD discussion. -- The Anome 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • WP:EQ See Words of Advice "Be open and warmly welcoming, not insular." User:IamZombie
          • See, even the devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose :) Addps4cat 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Ironic isn't it. (it's the same reason we're here in the firstplace. :) IamZombie 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Comment Indeed it is. User:The Anome makes it abundantly clear that Wikipedia protects their own, and has nothing but contempt for the lay users, be they new or old, who contribute to their site. This AfD has very little to do with the content of Tribalwar and much more to do with the actions of User:Bugs5382, and anyone from WP who states otherwise is either uninformed or a damn liar. -- LX702 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Everyking 11:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Gamecruft. Artw 14:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This looks like a serious case of meatpuppetry. Closing admin: Please don't be intimidated by the hordes of new users - remember that regardless of hordes of new users, WP:V is non-negotiable, and none of the sources in the article are reliable sources. Captainktainer * Talk 15:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Remember, verifiability and reliable sources are NOT reasons for deletion. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The idea behind wikipedia is to *improve* articles, not just delete them because they don't follow policy. Addps4cat 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Actually, being wholly unverifiable is one of the primary reasons for deleting articles. Wikipedia:Verifiability is our of our fundamental content policies. If you want to argue that this article should not be deleted, you should be citing sources to demonstrate that the article is verifiable, not arguing that we should ignore one of the project's fundamental policies. Uncle G 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Yes you are correct, being wholly unverifiable is a reason for deletion. My argument is that TW is indeed verifiable and does have citable sources. Just because the TW wiki page currently lacks those features does not mean it should be deleted out-of-hand. People citing those policies want this page to be deleted because of that without realizing the article can improved not deleted. Addps4cat 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • If you wish to argue that the article is verifiable, then cite the sources that you argue can be cited. For best effect, cite them in the article. Adding citations of reliable sources to an article is one of the best ways to argue that it should not be deleted. Just claiming that there are sources, without citing them or even giving a single clue as to what they are, holds little to no water, on the other hand. Please cite sources. Uncle G 17:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I suspect I'll regret this, but I would point Captainktainer in the general direction of 4chan (its only AfD was closed as bad-faith). I think there are various other forum and website articles that should obviously be there, but which have serious problems meeting WP:V too. (Unfortunately, it seems like everyone agrees it's a good idea, but fewer actually follow it.) - makomk 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no references to other reliable sources that mention events in this article are provided, thus fails verifiability test. We've been here before; verifiability is non-negotiable. Kimchi.sg 15:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB; agree with User:Captainktainer re WP:V and meatpuppetry. -- The Anome 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, again, regarding the positioning in the community: 69,000 Google results for "Tribalwar.com" (96,000 for Tribalwar alone, but that's more vague). There were also interviews and official contests held by the developers of Tribes: Vengeance during its development, as they regarded the site to be the most important in the community. Note that other fansites in such positions, such as BZPower have passed their AfDs due to the same reasoning. Of course, it's hard to call this purely a Tribes fansite any longer, but it still has standing in the community and is linked to from outside for purely that reason. I do agree, however, that the article needs to be completely rewritten/overhauled, and much of the cruftyness removed -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep but needs a rewrite as per Consumed Crustacean's comments. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Seems to be evidence that it's a reasonably significant fan forum for the Tribes games (not from quite as reliable sources as I'd like, but anything more is probably too much to ask, this being game-related and all.) Most of the article content is totally unverifiable cruft that has no place on Wikipedia, though. - makomk 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Before we go about deleting this article, lets have a look at WP:V. per Wikipedia:Deletion policy in the section about things inwhich deletion is not needed, there is a section on what to do with unverifiable articles. Please give this one month, if no citations are found in that time frame (out of the many ghits), then bring this back for deletion. —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - One of the biggest puppeteering AFDs I've ever seen... impressive... anyways, just wanted to say that regardless of notability, a good deal of information in the current article is OR and unverifiable and should be removed, though probably after this debate has reached conclusion. Wickethewok 19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR WP:WEB. Whispering 20:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, especially if AYBABTU originated there. -- M e rovingian ( T, C, @) 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete, It took me a while to determine which way to go, but once you boil it's all down, this is ultimately a vanity article. -- TheFarix ( Talk) 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, I'll also like to note that the TW members have some serious ownership issues with regard to this article. This is why I doubt that a rewrite will properly scrub the article of it's WP:VANITY status. -- TheFarix ( Talk) 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, seems to violate WP:OR and WP:WEB. Also, the massive wad of meatpuppetry is disturbing. Picaroon9288 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Addps4cat, but must be cleaned up. Themindset 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Your continuous use of "meatpuppet" is offensive and on the order of the personal attacks which were aimed squarely (and rightfully) at the user who nominated this article for deletion. If you can't comment without calling us names, then don't comment. We have just as much right to be here (if not more) than you do -- meatpuppets or otherwise. 63.230.5.15 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, Meatpuppet is a perfectly normal classification in AfDs, especially ones invovling forums like this. Read the link. It is not a personal attack. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Reply - "Normal" by what standards? Most English-speaking individuals would take offense to being called a "meatpuppet". Further, from your link:
        • Quote: "Use of this term is generally not advised, since it can be perceived as highly uncivil, and is certainly likely to discourage new users from participating further." 63.230.5.15 21:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Comment it's fairly obvious that the forum is recruiting people to give keep "votes" for this AfD. When it's done to this degree, some editors get annoyed. Can you not see the reason for that? At that, most English-speaking individuals wouldn't know what the hell "Articles for Deletion" is either. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment,Removed by IamZombie 21:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) User above posted it in a better manner. IamZombie 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Personal attacks are never rightfully aimed at anyone on Wikipedia ( WP:NPA). Calling users meatpuppets is certainly uncivil (also a violation of policy: WP:CIVIL) and possibly also a personal attack. Your criticism here is valid, and I at least will openly admit to not considering WP:CIVIL inviolable and knowingly making (possible) personal attacks. But this accusation is not random or unjustified. In my opinion, meatpuppettry is an apt and evocative description of externally influenced collusion (I have provided the evidence earlier) to sway consensus on Wikipedia, which makes one of the most fundamental and inviolable policies—indeed the backbone—of Wikipedia, neutrality, impossible. You certainly have as much (not more!) right as anyone to contribute to Wikipedia, but note that anything you contribute will be mercilessly edited by other editors. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Most Internet forums are not notable (in my opinion), and this one doesn't make much of a case as far as WP:WEB. I see claims on this AfD that it could have reliable sources, but as nobody has added any to the article, I have a certain degree of doubt. GassyGuy 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Although it is perhaps a notable message board, I'm not sure if wikipedia is the place for such an article. It also strikes me as vanity and useless hard to read incidents such as "chairgate" do not help this article. To me a encyclopedia dramatica entry would be more appropriate. Lenn0r 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Having seen the entry for encyclopedia dramatica, I'm inclined to agree that most of the information in the article should be moved, leaving possibly only an entry that describes Tribalwar's place as a hub for the game series Tribes. The history cruft should be moved to the other site which seems a better fit. Xpdnc 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup. Seems notable to be on BigBoards (even though's a bad indicator of forum size, but thats another story). Motivation of nominator is also an issue. -- Steel 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, no external cites, 80th on big-boards isn't impressive. Phr ( talk) 09:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per 80th on big-boards, though I'm not sure what really can be said about this forum... not many claims to fame aside of the AYBABTU thing, which is already covered in an article of its own. If kept, this needs massive cleanup. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 12:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per ranking on big boards. There are many websites with even lower Alexa rankings. Also, Alexa may be unreliable source of website info. -- Richman271 talk/ con 21:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Alexa is misleading for this type of site since Alexa basically measures page views, and sites like this get tons of reloads from their users. 80th on big-boards is pretty feeble IMO. Take a look at the higher-ranked ones (70-80, say): http://rankings.big-boards.com/?p=4 -- 79th is "Howard forums" mobile phone discussion board, 78th is "S2KI Honda S2000 owners' community", etc.; I can't see those as encyclopedic. Big-boards itself is pretty specialized, so 80th place is really no big deal. It might be evidence (not conclusive) of notibility if a site is in Big-boards top 10, but certainly not 80th. Phr ( talk) 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Shane was fired from TribalWar for this exact shit. He abused his position as a staff member at TW to delete forum posts by people [personal attacks removed]. As far as notability, if it's okay to have articles about people who troll Internet forums (e.g. Gay Nigger Association of America), there should be no problem with ones about Internet forums themselves. Nido 22:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Nothing wrong with articles on internet forums that are notable and well-documented. That doesn't appear to be the case with this article. Maybe the forum could get a mention in the Tribes article. This article is largely about various personalities who hang out on the forum, which are totally nn. Phr ( talk) 22:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Note: Please review WP:NPA. No personal attacks please. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V and for missing WP:WEB and for and generally being WP:VSCA. Internet fora need to demonstrate notability, and this doesn't so much fail to so aa not bother even trying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable, lacks verifiable sources. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 23:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete No assertion of encyclopedic notability, and verifiability problems. If this article is kept than a major cleanup is needed to remove non-encyclopedic content. Possibly also semi-protect to ward off the hordes of forumpuppets Bwithh 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Alexa traffic ranking 71,752 and dropping, but at least it's in the top 100,000. Content needs verification, but that's not a deletion issue. -- John Nagle 16:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. As mentioned, Alexa is *not* a reliable source of information. Their data is dependent on their toolbar, which no computer savvy user would ever use. As TribalWar's main audience is computer savvy users, Alexa's data is highly inaccurate.-- 24.161.31.179 21:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment, I agree. As I said before, Google results and the website's connection with Sierra / Irrational Games / the general Tribes community are far better indicators. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is pretty clearly a bad faith nomination. However, if we don't use Alexa or Google as standards for websites, what do we use? It doesn't appeare to be notable, and contains no outside sources. Danielross40 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete I agree wth Danielross40 in that this is likely a bad faith nom but that does not excuse the fact that this article does not verify anything with outside sources. Also, I found the language very inclusive and after reading the article in full i did not come away with much valuable information about Tribes or even thefurum itself really. So, if this article gets a rewrite with NPOV and is given good sources i would suggest keeping it. But until then this article is mainly useless for the outsider as a peice of esoteric fan/gamecruft.- (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article does not give any information that is useful enough for an encyclopedia. Thus, delete or a major clean-up. -- angers 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The Adventures of Fifine

A furry webcomic, seen here. For a website that has been online since 1999, it gets a surprisingly little amount of Google hits, 34 of them. None of those hits are reliable sources on which to base a Wikipedia article. The comic is hosted on a furry webcomic site, purrsia, which has an Alexa rank of 80,000, but you'll see from that link that the majority of hits to that domain name are to the comic Freefall (webcomic). Not a notable website, lacking reliable sources. - Hahnch e n 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment As of late, AFD's = WAR AGAINST WEB COMICS -- Librarianofages 00:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Every couple of months I do a sweep of the webcomics category. I probably couldn't keep up this rate of nominations indefinitely, and I lose interest anyway. I'd certainly welcome more people to look over the Webcomics category. - Hahnch e n 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. No, it's housekeeping for nonnotable webcomics. There's a difference between some random webcomic and Kazu Kibuishi's Copper, for example. The latter's been nominated for an Eisner and won other various awards. -- ColourBurst 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: The webcomics category is filled and constantly refilled with unreferenced and unverified vanispamcruftisement. Thank you, Hahnchen, for helping clean up this encyclopedia. -- Dragonfiend 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless WP:NN and WP:V is established. SynergeticMaggot 01:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above -- Alias Flood 01:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The article provides no indication that this particular comic is widely viewed, and independent assessment indicates few links to it (what Google measures). Therefore, the world isn't wondering what it is, and our readers aren't seeking an explanation. The fact that it is a webcomic is irrelevant: it is a web comic that doesn't have a claim to fame other than persistence. Old age is not a testimonial. Geogre 02:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable webcomic. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment A version of this article is available on Comixpedia: The Adventures of Fifine. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 02:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn Homestarmy 03:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails to assert notability. -- ColourBurst 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per nom. Artw 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per WP:WEB, no assertion of notability. -- The Anome 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above — Fire Fox 21:30, 21 July '06
  • Delete. Entirely fails to assert notability. Alphachimp talk 01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, does not meet our content policies, starting with WP:V. -- Dragonfiend 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The comic has several printed books, meeting notability requirements. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: "Printed books" by themselves do not confer notability; self-publishing, for example, doesn't make it more notable. If you get picked up by a notable publisher, such as Dark Horse comics or Scholastic Press, that's a different story. -- ColourBurst 06:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:WEB Massmatto 16:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Fur Will Fly

This article was previously AFDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fur Will Fly, that discussion resulted in a no consensus after only 3 editors' input. Nothing has changed since my last nomination, only that the Alexa rank for the comics hosting site has falled to 550,000. The article contains no reliable sources. We should be applying the WP:WEB guidelines as strictly to webcomics as we do with other websites. A guideline that this webcomic fails. Note that the webcomic author Brian Daniel has been included in this nomination - Hahnch e n 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. No ascertion of notablility. SynergeticMaggot 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above -- Alias Flood 01:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and strong delete the author. Esteffect 01:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Essentially the same format as the above: the article merely says X = Y and then goes into excessive detail reiterating the thing. What is missing from this is the significance of X. What effect has it had? What notoriety has it gained? This is dangerously close to an A7 speedy delete candidate. Geogre 02:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 02:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The comic has been around for 6 years and has attained a decent following. In fact, the fact that it has an Alexa rank in the first place helps it's case...most webcomics probably wouldn't even rank in the top million, if at all. In addition, the article has already survived one AfD, and has been around for a year. The article could use some improvement, but that's not a delete reason. Oh, and Strong Delete the author, who really should have his own nomination.-- UsaSatsui 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. comic is not in the top 100,000 websites http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=&y=t&q=&size=medium&range=&url=www.furwillfly.com -- Ageo020 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I can find lots of pages not in the top 100,000 websites. I don't recall Alexa rank being a criteria for deletion anyway. -- UsaSatsui 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Alexa can be used as an indicator to how popular a website is. A rank of 550,000 suggests that it isn't, it's by no means a be all and end all, if you look at some of the wikilinks in my nomination, you'll see that one of them led to a 10,000 ranked website which was recently deleted. However, the subject of this article really needs some outside independent sources. As Geogre mentions, the article contains no assertion of notability outside that it exists. - Hahnch e n 03:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom Homestarmy 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, delete author per nom (but do a better job with multiples next time, this almost qualifies as a drive-by). -- Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both non-notable webcomic and author hoopydink Conas tá tú? 06:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Artw 14:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nom Buck ets ofg✐ 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This is the nom's 2nd attempt at removing this comic. The comic in question has been worked on by various noted artists in webcomics. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -per nom. Massmatto 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • d per nom GangstaEB~( penguin logs) 20:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Transwiki'd to WikiFur: Fur Will Fly. I would suggest that if other such comic articles are deleted, moving a copy over to us should be considered before the actual deletion, as we do not have Wikipedia's notability/verifiability requirements, instead welcoming all furry fandom topics. We are also better-equipped to improve the relevant articles. -- GreenReaper 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 04:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Debate Klub

A webcomic found here with a total of 31 strips to its belt, 20 Google hits, no Alexa rank and a Wikipedia article that needs to get deleted. - Hahnch e n 00:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 03:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Friend Bear (comic)

The webcomic can be seen here, there is no Alexa rank, although the article claims that it served 20,000 unique visitors a month. Maybe that's true, but there's no external sources about the subject that I can find. That's probably because it is not a notable website or piece of work. - Hahnch e n 00:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless WP:NN and WP:V is established. -- Alias Flood 01:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 02:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable webcomic. The claim appears to be unverifiable. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if there is no verification in the following week. The strip seems to have had its fame on a mailing list, which wouldn't register Google hits. Further, its heyday is in the distant past, by Google cache standards, so the claims are possible, but there would need to be some lasting effect of this former "meme" for there to need to be an article. Things like "All Your Base" are dead horses, but they persist a bit. Has this? The article doesn't give us reason to believe it did. Did it lead to some outgrowth? The article doesn't tell us. Again, some indication of significance, if its notability is passed, needs to be offered. Geogre 02:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment A version of this article is available on Comixpedia: Friend Bear. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 10:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom Buck ets ofg✐ 00:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Black Tapestries

My third and final furry webcomic nomination of today, you can see the comic here. It's hosted on Comic Genesis a free webhost like Bravenet or Livejournal. Alexa says that Black Tapestries draws 4% of the hits to the comicgen.com domain (which is ranked at 30,000). Looking on Google, with search strings like "Black Tapestries" webcomic and "Black Tapestries" webcomic review, I couldn't find a decent external source writing about this webcomic. None notable, unsourced furry webcomic articles belong at Wikifur or Comixpedia, not here. - Hahnch e n 01:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Necessary evil

A short, diffuse essay on the topic, which has lots of potential to become a long, diffuse essay. WP != soapbox. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as OR, unless references can be found (and something significant can be said). -- InShaneee 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Original Reasearch. SynergeticMaggot 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not much material for anything but a definition of an expression. Maybe it should be a wictionary entry. -- Xrblsnggt 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The only thing that can be said about necessary evil that's NPOV is its definition, which belongs in wiktionary.-- SweetNeo85 01:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Dictdef + OR. It seems to exist to give its external link, so there is some advertising, too. It is possible to have an encyclopedic article on the theory of the necessary evil, but this isn't it. Geogre 02:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, but it would be good to have an entry on the subject of evil in general.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.250.202.104 ( talk • contribs) 01:23, July 21, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone comes up with something encyclopedic to say about it (it is a widespread phrase after all). Fireplace 11:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Evil for the moment. Zargulon 12:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - might end up worthy of full article, but this isn't it. Also a similar concept to The ends justify the means, could maybe be pulled together with that. Ace of Risk 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and other deletes. Artw 14:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as original research — Fire Fox 21:36, 21 July '06
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:SOAP Buck ets ofg✐ 00:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:NOT a dictionary of quotations or a soapbox. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Looks like a good idea to merge it. I wrote the article. I'll put it into one of the others. Barbara Shack 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) I've put it into " The ends justify the means Barbara Shack 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per Barbara Shack - (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 07:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Antena 2

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. SweetNeo85 01:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - they should come back when/if launched. BlueValour 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG Keep & Re-write *EDIT* Station has started broadcasting [8], -- Librarianofages 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - when they actually are one of the five Romanian TV stations they can have an article. Until then this is crystalballism per nom - Peripitus (Talk) 02:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: All this is is an announcement of a plan. Plans are notoriously subject to gang aglee. What's more, the article is a statement of a negative: 'the other station hasn't gone on the air, and no one knows why.' Well, when there is information to impart and a thing to have information about, it will be time to report on it. Until then, the authors can keep a weather eye on the station. Geogre 02:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - That report, the only one, is not dated so it is not clear whether that is a test tranmission or whether scheduled broadcasts have started. Since it is on Google it will have pre-dated the article so one or other is wrong. I guess it will become clearer over the next few days. BlueValour 03:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The Antena that is focused on news is Antena 3 (Romania), so probably that page is reffering to that Antena (not to Antena 2, which focuses on male public). Additionally, the HTTP Last-Modified tag of that page says "25 Jan 2006, 14:30:55 GMT"; since I live in Romania, I would know if it started broadcasting for so much time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsocol ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment - because it may not start broadcasting again. If you know it will please tell me next week's winning lottery numbers :-) BlueValour 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the answer to the question is in the nom statement. Themindset 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The channel is regularly operating (and has been for some time, no testing - a normal schedule matching what is indicated on their website) together with Antena 1, 3 and 4 on Eutelsat W2. Downlink data are in all (Italian) satellite magazines. -- 82.58.196.174 22:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)MarcoNew user; this is this user's only contribution. BlueValour 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 04:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Snootysims

One of many websites for The Sims and The Sims 2. Reads like a personal account of how the site grew, and is kind of an advertisement anyway. 13,700 Google hits but this is one of many fansites that would only be notable on a Wikia Wiki for The Sims. Esteffect 01:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Cruftycalifragellisticexpialadocious -- Xrblsnggt 02:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as a test. This is a very, very clear test article. Look at the inappropriate cut and paste HTML tags. See the "insert formula here." Blug. Had the author learned our editing and done this, it would have been a speedy delete as an A7: biography of an imaginary person not appearing in fiction. Biographies of screen names are not biographies: they're personal fantasies, and I don't want to intrude. Geogre 02:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB.Cruftycalifragellisticexpialadocious.... hmmm..... must remember that - Peripitus (Talk) 02:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. R.E. Freak 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:VAIN WilyD 12:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Artw 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above — Fire Fox 21:36, 21 July '06
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 04:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Abdul Gafoor M.A., D.Litt , Irayarul Kavimani

I cannot trace a reference to Irayarul Kavimani and I haven't found Abdul Gafoor in the context of a Tamil scholar rather than a Mosque. Can anyone help further? BlueValour 01:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep This article was only created 2 days ago! therefore we must allow room for ORGANIC EXPANSION also I forget the rule but aren't we meant to give new articles time? In the next couple of days (if verifiable) I will expand myself! -- Librarianofages 02:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - there was actually a case for speedy so 5 extra days are being allowed :-) When an article is created it is incumbant on the author to establish notability. Notwithstanding that, I have carried out my own research and would not have brought the article here if I could have found grounds for notability. BlueValour 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You haven't even stubified, what makes you think that you're the be all and end all of researching everything from Scholars to TV stations? -- Librarianofages 02:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - You've lost me on the second part of your comment - I do not claim to be an expert. On the TV station the article itself implies it may not launch and here the point I made is that I make some enquires even if the article doesn't establish notability. I cannot see what you object to in that. Bear in mind an AfD allows 5 days for discussion/expansion. Good point on stub - I have stubbified and categorized. BlueValour 02:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or speedy delete: It's a clear A7 again: no claims for importance. Being a scholar is good, but it is not encyclopedic. Further, the article has to provide the verification. "Organic expansion" is not an argument: it's a wish. Geogre 02:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete it seems difficult to verify. Article also needs to explain why he was notable. Will reconsider if expanded. Dlyons493 Talk 02:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep for now and expand. There are some hits for him on Google Scholar, though not all of them are relevant (but about half are). I'll change my mind if this doesn't get expanded. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a fairly common name and I wonder about many of those hits. For example, this Abdul Gafoor is notable and should have an article but I think he's a different person. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. Dlyons493 Talk 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep expand it or delete it. his works must be known to the general public or scholars in Tamil Nadu. -- Ageo020 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment His works notability need to be verified by someone who can read Tamil or Arabic (the most likely language for translation), obviously whichever language his books are written in will be the language they're primarily discussed in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarianofages ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete Ste4k 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Just too unimportant a figure. Jonswift 04:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if no notability is asserted till time of closing. I will reconsider otherwise. — Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 09:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no-one seems interested in adding any notability to the article. BlueValour 11:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Kickfighting

Neologism, original research are both possible. At the very least no sources are cited. Creator has been notified. SweetNeo85 01:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. This appears to exist, but the article needs sources and cleanup. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Send to cleanup: Yes, it exists, but this is a melange of poopy writing and thinking. Let's hope clean up can actually insert some references and make the wording work. Geogre 02:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Since it is probably all the result of a fertile imagination (I have searched high and low for references without success and the editors haven't produced any in 2 months) how can it be cleanedup? It would result in all content being removed and then speedied for no-content :-) BlueValour 07:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I didn't know that it had such a long history (didn't check). If it's been here for 2 months and still looks like this, it should go. We had a debate a year or so ago about various forms of Wallball or something like that, and we decided to keep children's games, if they could be discussed coherently. This game does exist among the energetic and aggressive, but it isn't being discussed coherently, so delete without prejudice against a proper article creation (not recreation). Geogre 11:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN neologism Resolute 03:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete please. Ste4k 03:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete neologism, fails WP:V Alphachimp talk 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - it seems to be a term that can be used loosely for 'Kung Fu Kickfighting' and 'Kickboxing'. However, I cannot find any references to it being an organised sport or a specific terminology. Nothing is lost by deleting it and it can be recreated if a reliable source is found. BlueValour 07:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Chuck Norris Says: Roundhouse kick into the Delete pile. -- GWO

* Keep subject to my memory playing tricks as I think I've heard of this. I'll try and do a bit of cleanup when I get the chance - there's a bunch of hits on google. MLA 12:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete changing my recommendation as I can't verify my own recollections - I feel sure I've heard of it but it cpuld just be a promotional term from the early days of full contact fighting. The article as it currently exists has nothing to do with kickfighting in any form of combat sport or martial art style and is just a non-notable game made up in school. MLA 11:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I am happy to stand corrected but the Google hits, as mentioned above, seem to relate to a loose description of other sports. The key point is that in this article it refers to hands tied behind the back whereas kickfighting per Google are all variants where you can use feet or hands. BlueValour 15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 since no one is going to shed a tear for this advert of adverts. Kimchi.sg 15:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Secure-webconferencing

Blatant advertising. They even put search keywords at the bottom to generate hits. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote your product and/or service. -- Xrblsnggt 01:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Possibly the worst case of spam I have ever seen. The keywords section is truly ridiculous. Wickethewok 02:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm in favour of keeping as many articles as possible, but this would not be one of them per above reasons. -- Librarianofages 02:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It looks like an email sent by spammers to rip off someone. -- Sbluen 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Spam essay. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - blatant spam - Peripitus (Talk) 02:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: It can't be speedied for advertising, and it's not really spam (which would be speedyable), but it's a clear deletion guideline failure: a signed promo for a service. If it experienced a mysterious accident in the night, few would mourn, I'm sure. Geogre 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Is this a copyvio of something? It seems like it probably should be, though I don't find this essay on their website... Wickethewok 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I was hoping so, too. I think, unfortunately, it's an original come-on just for us. Either that or it's a copyvio of their e-mail spam sandwich or of their pamphlet. I think it may trip and fall down the stairs soon. Geogre 11:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of cars in Burnout Legends

No information here that isn't game guide information. I merged the content at top into the Burnout Legends article. A list of cars with explanations of how to unlock them is the only other content. This is most certainly a game guide, which Wikipedia most certainly is not. Of all the game articles listed recently, this could be the most noncontroversial and obvious AFD so far (imo at least). *Delete as an obvious game guide with other content already having been merged. Wickethewok 01:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. ( ESkog)( Talk) 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Plannoay DVD Rating System

Original research. No background. Appears to be something somebody just made up. Zero G-hits. -- Xrblsnggt 02:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as original research. -- Metropolitan90 02:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as original research. Even the single word "Plannoay" returns zero Google hits. Johntex\ talk 02:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable method. -- Sbluen 02:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, original research. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Uhhhh, I looked at it. I read it. I have a strong feeling that it's not original research at all, that it is a service provided for a fee or a sign up opt-in and that, therefore, what's really happening here is a form of advertising. I'm just not sure what the heck this system is supposed to do for people -- help pirates win arguments? Convince kids to pay full price? Settle video geek arm wrestling competitions? If the article can't even tell you the usefulness of the thing, it's a failure as an article and an ad. Geogre 02:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 03:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOR or what Geogre said...either way it's a delete. Alphachimp talk 04:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Geogre. Voice of Treason 04:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Surely some sort of joke. Example: "[-3 points] If the star is an ex-wrestling personality." Nothing on Google or even Google groups. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Geogre's insightful comment. - (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 by User:Enochlau with deletion summary "nonsense". BryanG (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

We are dinosaurs

  • Delete prod tag was removed by author but the article does not assert notability of subject. Jersey Devil 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I'd like to add that if notability is established I'll change my vote.-- Jersey Devil 02:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A8, new copyvio. The text is just lifted off the website listed in the article. Add this to the character list on the Sanrio article if not already there. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete: Not only is this a copyvio, it's anti-contextual and therefore pretty much nonsense. Geogre 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy-d per above. SynergeticMaggot 03:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per above. Czj 06:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. ( ESkog)( Talk) 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Xceedspeed.net

SPAM. -- Xrblsnggt 02:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This article is about a non-notable website. -- Sbluen 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. SynergeticMaggot 02:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Local club, local mailing list, and no wider appeal or significance offered. Geogre 02:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 02:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not a well known website. Just advertising-- Ageo020 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:WEB Alphachimp talk 04:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Why didn't the nominator just speedy-delete? It was only made today... -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I chose to add the afd tag instead of speedy-delete because this article has a little bit of content and spam is a non-criterian. Then Xrblsnggt nominated it before I finished thinking of my reason. -- Sbluen 06:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - hoax. Johntex\ talk 03:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

619 sex position

Article would appear to be unsourced original research. At best it is a neologism. The article also contains dubious "facts" such as the area code in San Diego (which is 619) was named after this sex position. Google returns zero hits on "619 sex position". "in the 619 position" gets some hits but they are about a wrestling hold. "position 619" gets some hits but they are about a referendum/statute. Johntex\ talk 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Update: Thanks for your comments. Upon further investigation, it seems the author of this article was a vandalism-only account. I'm going to speedy delete the article and block the user. Johntex\ talk 03:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedily closed, needs to go on WP:MFD. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan

nn Characters. Zong785 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep seems like a genuine character. not vanity article but a little self promoting.-- Ageo020 02:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Expand There's something here, but it's not here just yet. R.E. Freak 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close, this doesn't belong in AFD. Wherever it is, it should be kept, because it's in the correct namespace for its purpose. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 CSD A7 - in one line. Whiskey tango foxtrot, indeed. Kimchi.sg 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Protean Knights

Advertising for WOW guild. Not NPOV Sjledet 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete wikipedia is not a game guide. maybe could have a few lines in the game's article itself-- Ageo020 02:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. syphonbyte ( t| c) 02:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it's a guild. Danny Lilithborne 03:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete possibly with acid. Fails vanity, spam, whiskey tango foxtrot, et al. WilyD 12:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. ( ESkog)( Talk) 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Cherry band

This is a poorly defined neologism that returns no meaningful Google hits. NatusRoma | Talk 02:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. — Fire Fox 21:39, 21 July '06
  • The fact that I'm LMAO is the only reason not to slap this with a speedy delete 216.141.226.190 04:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. There are some "merge" votes, but there is another discussion for the merge of the article ongoing, so these were not counted. – Will ( Take me down to the Paradise City) 10:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

DotA Allstars

Page amounts to a game guide (violating WP:NOT) for a non-notable subject (a spin-off version of the custom map Defense of the Ancients for the computer game Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne), with an excessive trivia section. JimmyBlackwing 03:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Dota allstars is currently the most played game on the WC engine, apart from the actual game itself. It is notable enough to have its own article -- Librarianofages 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There seems to have been some confusion in the history. It was merged after the previous AfD (which ended with merge and redirect), the redirect was then deleted to make way for moving a page created under a different name, perhaps a demerged version. No vote.-- Chaser T 03:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The notability of DotA Allstars has gone up significantly since that last AfD in 2005. That is likely the reason for it popping up again. -- JRavn 05:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. The two main parts of the article are a version history and an explanation of the inspiration for each of the heroes (characters). I think that this may be original research as it may not be published anywhere else. Thus, it probably also fails to be verifiable. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service. A lot of work by the DotA community went into this article, so I hope there is someplace to which it could be trans-wikied. -- Habap 10:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The article used to also contain sections on terminology (most of which was not specific to DotA), verbal acknowledgements when making kills in the game and a collection of weblinks. The current version looks odd without those sections, which may provide a better article, though don't necessarily make it any more encyclopedic and do make it more of a game guide. -- Habap 10:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Some Transwiki, Some Keep - Being played on the internet is not a acceptable claim of notability; Being a map heavily used in tournaments /is/. I know it's been mentioned numerous times on TechTV (pre-merger) and on G4 (post-merger) if the tournament notability isn't enough. The issue is the style of writing in the article; The answer is {{sofixit}}. Transwiki some of the content to something like Gameguides (or whatever it's name is), leave minor focus on the structure of it, and instead focus on it's use in the tournament setting and, possibly, it's recognition by Blizzard Entertainment. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Do they use DotA or DotA:Allstars in the tournaments? -- Habap 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
DotA:Allstars has been included in blizzard tournaments recently (few months ago). That should be added to this article. eventine 13:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. How is this a game guide? There's no description on how to play with the items and heroes, or the game mechanics, only where they get the names from. Nevertheless, if the article is kept (only on the condition that it really has been used in major tournaments, which can be verified) the section with items and heroes should be removed and replaced with which tournaments use the mod. Either that, or merge into a warcraft custom mods article. -- ColourBurst 17:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The tournament information is in the final paragraph of the opening section of Defense of the Ancients and references the CPL page] on DotA. It states in the rules that they user version 6.32b, which sounds like a DotA:A version. I have never played the game, so I don't know. -- Habap 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - If someone can find and cite information from reliable sources claiming that this WC3 map is especially of interest (eg. most popular map used in tournaments, press coverage from relatively important sources) over the next couple days, maybe its worth a keep, but if no one presents any reliable sources after this reasonable amount of time, I say delete. That said, the article's content/writing is terrible and most of it is likely original research. Wickethewok 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's not really a game guide it's more of a list of things updated to the map. Either way it's not encyclopedic. Whispering 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
While it is more of a list, it is not an update list. There is nothing in what WP:NOT that I think this page violates. eventine 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not a game guide, but almost all of the content is on the other DoTA page. Why even bother a merge? David Fuchs 23:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Very little of the information is listed on the other page. Look at the allusions and point to wheres that listed on the other page? eventine 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree that some of the article is completely useless especially the development. The player trends has importance and should mention that Blizzard now includes DotA Allstars as part of the tournaments. Does need citations, but that is difficult to find whereas if you actually go on Bnet you will see more people play DotA than any other custom map. Outside of the game development section, the article is not a game guide as it does not suggest what heroes/items do. What I think is most important is that this is the ONLY version of DotA still played. That combined with its popularity and inclusion in tournaments should merit a keep. eventine 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment A citation on the use of DotA can be found in the end of the opening section of Defense of the Ancients. If DotA:Allstars is the version use for that and is the only version of DotA still being played, why not just merge whatever useful information there is into that article? The section on allusions doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, but might be interesting in a game guide. -- Habap 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
DotA article is a history of the development of DotA spin offs, but none of the other games are really popular to such an extent. In my opinion, the DotA articles should be merged. But since this isn't about merging but deleting, I have to go with a keep. I think that allusions and cultural references do belong in an encyclopedia. eventine 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Typically, people who want to keep the information but not the article vote something like Merge or Trans-wiki. There also is no reason that we can't merge the information now and make the vote irrelevant. Do you really think identifying the source of every character is encyclopedic? There like 49 characters and 20 items. That seems like excessive detail. Regardless, if that's the information here that ought to be retained, let's copy it to the main article and be done with this. -- Habap 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I really do think that the details are important. I think they're interesting and informative. And I think they should remain in the article. Excessive is if we look for every possible source or potential allusion for every hero/item. eventine 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The information on the heroes and items is unencyclopedic, and sections themselves are pure original research, in addition to being largely speculation. Even if the article is kept, the sections will need to be removed. JimmyBlackwing 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It strikes me as an informative page. If one doesn't know what the subject is, he can learn by reading this article. Which is kinda the point of any article. And any more information then the needed (like version history) can be removed from the article. -- Acid Ammo 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article was improperly redirected and marked as having the AfD closed without it being closed here, so I have reverted that. Assuming the article gets deleted, wouldn't it best redirect to Defense of the Ancients? -- Habap 10:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - acutally, I was reinstating the verdict following the previous AFD. I didn't realise it was up for AFD again. Proto:: type 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment - whatever the previous verdict was, i am sure the redirect wasn't to warcraft iii... we should just merge this into dota and get it over with. the information here is interesting/good enough that it shouldn't be lost completely. eventine 13:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete, fails WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:V. Proto:: type 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, much of this game cruft should not make the DoTA article, as it was also nominated for a merge. But Merge, don't delete all of it. David Fuchs 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this page and delete Defense of the Ancients. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Furthermore, these two pages are not notable enough to have a separate page on Wikipedia. Perhaps they can be briefly mentioned in the Warcraft III article. (Emphasis on briefly which means that I do not support a complete merge). Sijo Ripa 14:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per above. Haven't we been here before? Whispering 16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. per User:Proto -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep More notable and popular than original game and most of it is verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsdemir ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep This is most famous map on Battle.net -- Sasa Stefanovic • 03:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and merge/redirect to Defense of the Ancients. There's no need for both pages. The current article violates WP:V badly, and I don't think anything could be done to change that. There's no need for both pages. Defense of the Ancients already covers Allstars well enough. Keep This is definitely a notable topic. A google search returns over a million results, almost all of which are relevent. If anything, Defense of the Ancients needs to be deleted - it looks like a duplicate. The classic AOS maps are not notable, only Allstars is worth mentioning. I would guess that the majority of War3 players are playing DotA. The article itself could use some cleanup and citations though. -- JRavn 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The content of Defense of the Ancients is what should go into DotA Allstars. They should be merged and one deleted (I'd say Defense of the Ancients because DotA Allstars is the notable name). The current content of the DotA Allstars article is bad, but again, I don't think that's reason to delete it but it needs to be fixed. -- JRavn 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak merge with Defense of the Ancients. Weak because the entire Defense of the Ancients article is threatening to be taken over by AllStars information. If the other variants of DotA were expanded, it would be great but the article would be too large. So my vote is delete all the information below ==Allusions== and merge with Defense of the Ancients, but we need more information about the other versions, seriously. x42bn6 Talk 07:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 04:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Frankie Abernathy

A cast member of one season of a reality TV show is not notable, and, in particular, fails WP:BIO. NatusRoma | Talk 03:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are a few lines about the said person on The Real World San Diego( reality show) article. That should be enough. A separate article is not needed-- Ageo020 05:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redir per Ageo020. Themindset 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, although I watched the show. She was a very colorful character (self-mutilating, emotional, many, MANY piercings & tattoos) , but these were her only TV appearances. She never went on and did the challenges. I loved every minute of her, but there's enough on her on The Real World: San Diego article. 64.241.230.3 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I forgot to sign in. Don MEGĂ| 60645 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sociomimetics

This is a fairly reputable neologism, but it is a neologism nonetheless, and is too new a "discipline" to have anything like scholarship or verifiable information behind it. NatusRoma | Talk 03:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - 55 Google hits seems to be an indication that it isn't so notable. If it had more hits, I would suggest a merge into a related article such as Charles Armstrong, but I don't see any particularly relevant topic that it could fit into at this point. Fabricationary 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Might be worthy of an article someday, but not yet. Kafziel 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Shapeome

Prod was removed without comment now it's afd. Nn notable neologism, no Ghits for Shapeome or Shapernomics, both links as this is created point to the same site with no reference to this term Ávril ʃáη 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, per nomination.-- Ávril ʃáη 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I may be wrong, but I think the nomination sort of counts as a deletion vote already. Regardless, it seems to fail any notability test (and the external link to the university seems to be there for show, I couldn't find a reference to "shapeome" anywhere on it with a search). BigHaz 03:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I wasn't sure if the nom counted and can remove the vote it if it's not correct.-- Ávril ʃáη 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete - you need to acknowledge that there is a volume a literature, applications and research in the area of stydying biological shape, form and size. The words are new and not common, however the definitions of Shapeome and Shapeomics are clear and unambiguous. By the same token, we should not accept any of the 100's of -omics and -ome terms that clearly define modern concepts in biological sciences. Please see these links: http://www.genomicglossaries.com/content/omes.asp & Resourceome.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwaterpolo ( talk • contribs)
It is not that Wikipedia has to acknowledge, it is that articles have to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Notability guidelines.-- Ávril ʃáη 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - the fact that there are other terms ending in "omics" and "ome" is totally beside the point. None of those four links contain any reference to the word "shapeome" or "shapeomics" or any other construction designed to convey that meaning. Wikipedia exists so that concepts which are notable have articles on them, not topics which might become notable, regardless of how well-defined or logically-formed in English they might be. Unless and until evidence is provided that "shapeome" or "shapeomics" is a field of study recognised as such by reputable sources, it has no business being here. BigHaz 04:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a non-notable neologism. This reminds me too much of Connectome, from a couple weeks ago. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unheard field of science.-- Ageo020 05:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete fails WP:V, WP:NEO and common sense. -- Scientizzle 05:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Michael 07:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom; note that the external link is to a domain registered yesterday, which is not actually a website at all, but a redirect to the UCLA Center for Computational Biology -- a website on which the terms "shapeome" and "shapeomics" appear precisely zero times so far as I (and Google) can tell. This is not verifiable. Do feel free to come back when it is. — Haeleth Talk 10:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because it is a barbarism with no notable application. Byrgenwulf 11:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete used to be morphology when I was going to school. Dlyons493 Talk 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above Computerjoe 's talk 15:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. — Fire Fox 21:40, 21 July '06
  • Deletome is a more notable recent area of biology. Zargulon 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rje 23:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mass of the observable universe

Original research abakharev 04:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as OR. This could possibly serve as a redirect somewhere, but I don't know where. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unverified Research. Possibly a joke or a hoax-- Ageo020 05:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment put a mention of this AfD on the WikiProject Physics talk page. -- Koffieyahoo 05:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy as patent nonsense, and possibly vanity as well. Pages like this shouldn't be put up for AfD. It is better, in my opinion, to speedy such nonsensical sounding articles, and risk the remote chance of being wrong, than to leave them here while an AfD takes place. -- Philosophus T 06:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) See below. reply
  • Comment the article maybe complete crap, but I wonder how it is that Mass of the observable universe has been in the Orders of magnitude (mass) article since December 2003 and that there has been published an article on this subject in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics [9] -- Koffieyahoo 07:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The article is nonsense and OR, and can be speedied as such - the author is essentially multiplying a physical constant by some random value that came from nowhere. The idea could be added to the Observable universe article. But all the values I see here are suspect, and don't specify what they are talking about. Does mass mean baryonic matter or all matter? Either way, if one assumes that the "mass of a critical density universe" listed on the Orders of magnitude (mass) is for the observable universe (otherwise we can't really go converting density to mass, can we?), then the mass of the observable universe given there implies that , and more like 2, which is really wrong, so I assume something must be wrong with those values (or I am not thinking coherently). I'm removing them for now. An easy order of magnitude estimate would be , and is probably obvious enough that it can't be considered OR, but I don't want to do anything like that right now.

      As for the IJTP article, I can't get to it, and it isn't in Citebase. It is really old, too (1994), before any of the really accurate measurements of the important values. -- Philosophus T 10:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

      • Haven't looked at the IJTP article, I only wanted to demonstrate that the subject of the article was a valid one, eventhough the article itself was complete crap, which in my opition would just require a rewrite by someone with some knowledge of the field (not me in this case) and not an AfD. -- Koffieyahoo 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It would be a bad merge, as all the information appears to be wrong, except the value of the Planck length... WilyD 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I'm proposing that it be speedied, not merged. I am just suggesting that an order of magnitude figure for the total mass of all matter in the observable universe should be added to Observable universe.-- Philosophus T 13:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Nevermemind - it was the Planck time he got right, the Planck length is wrong. WilyD 13:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

*Speedy per Philosophus - creator made this while thinking the same thoughts as led to [ this]. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete When time increases in negative three dimensions under the force of gravity you oddly enough, have mass. Now that is odd. Keep the rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 12:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

*Speedy per Philosophus Jibbles | Talk 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) *Speedy Delete if someone cold bore a hole in this article to let the demons out, that'd be great. Thanks WilyD 13:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Comment per the rewrite, I'm now neutral between Keep and merge to Observable Universe WilyD 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I don't see it as speedy material. It's nonsense but not patent nonsense. Consider the fact that to a layman a good deal of modern physics reads as incomprehensible gibberish. Fan-1967 13:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment that may be true, but phycisists could step in and say No, it's fine. This isn't the case here. There are words there, but the words don't form into coherent thoughts. That's what makes it patent nonsense. It may take a long time to understand Cauchy's principle value theorom, but you can do it - this stuff can never be understood, hence patent nonsense. WilyD 14:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I think we need to be very careful with applying G1, which is for "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: ... implausible theories, or hoaxes."" This is not incoherent or gibberish. It's very well laid out and clearly stated. It just happens to be garbage. -- Fan-1967 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Comment you may be right, but I'm not convinced. It has all the form of language, but I'm not really sure it's coherent. Much as I detest Chomsky, he had a good point with Colourless green ideas sleep furiously - a phrase I think we could also dismiss as patent nonsense, even though it has all the trappings of being well laid out and clearly stated. WilyD 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Comment A few years ago, someone might have said the same about the following: "The observable universe is only 4% of the actual universe; the other 96% is composed of two varieties of undetectable substance whose existence can only be inferred from their effects." -- Fan-1967 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Right, but they would have been wrong, which is the different. I can say it about the phrase Brazil is the largest country in South America but I would be mistaken. The key signature of incoherence is that it's impossible to extract information from the sentence. If you're contending that it's only incoherent because it's excessively vague, you may be right, I have no idea. WilyD 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Fan-1967 is right. This article isn't patent nonsense. The text in section #1 is a quite legible description, in words, of the formula given in the introduction, for example. That the article is wrong does not mean that it is patent nonsense. Uncle G 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Nonsensical claims that are coherently phrased are still nonsense. The equations used in the article are pulled straight out of thin air, as are the statements about number of spacelike and timelike dimensions needed. See observable universe for sane and accurate treatment of the question. -- Christopher Thomas 19:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
              • Whether the article is nonsense is not at issue. Whether it is patent nonsense is. The two are not the same, and only the latter is speedily deletable. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria by erroneously conflating nonsense and patent nonsense. Uncle G 19:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V. It doesn't have to be true, but it has to be verifiable. Unless the author(s) can cite some sources to back up their assertions, it should be deleted. Scorpiondollprincess 14:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WilyD. Warning: By deleting articles you do increase the entropy of the universe a bit :) Count Iblis 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete OR Computerjoe 's talk 15:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nonsense. -- Christopher Thomas 15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It was at this point that a source was added to the article.
  • The article is wrong, inasmuch as it doesn't agree with the cited source. But this article does cite a source. An article on the subject of the mass of the observable universe can be written simply by cleaning this article up so that it agrees with the source that it cites. There's no need to delete the article in order to do that, and indeed deleting the article makes the source inaccessible. I encourage the participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics who have come to this discussion to aid in rewriting this article so that it matches what the sources actually say. Keep. Uncle G 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would be more inclined to allow this AFD to conclude and let this be deleted. Then if some good editors want to create a new article with this title (and without even the history of this stuff), I believe that would be a much better path. Fan-1967 19:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • There's nothing innately bad about having this content in the article's history. If anything, it will demonstrate Wikipedia's cleanup process in action. There is no reason for an administrator to hit the delete button on this article (and one good reason not to, as stated before). It does not require administrator privileges to make this article better. It merely requires ordinary editors to edit it in the ordinary way. The participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics are here. They should be able to clean this article up, so that it matches the source, in short order. Uncle G 19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It was at this point that the article was changed to make sense.
  • Keep as rewritten. Arguments for deletion no longer apply. -- Lambiam Talk 20:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect: the article is no longer nonsense, but should be part of the Observable universe article instead of an article in its own right. -- Philosophus T 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep the article is completely re-written and now is not an OR. I was the original nominator of this AfD abakharev 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KeepMerge the rewrite with Observable universe, as this is inherently a very short article. -- Koffieyahoo 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, much better now. -- M e rovingian ( T, C, @) 05:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Observable universe after rewrite. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep after rewrite. Polonium 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment seriously misleading while it lacks link to an article on observable universe which explains this term. Otherwise an intelligent layperson might well wonder, if the universe has infinite extent and finite matter density, how can it have a finite mass? There are many subtle points lurking here, but the first thing which needs to be explained is that the "observable universe" is defined wrt some event, such as "here on Earth in rougly 2000 AD", and corresponds to a finite region of spacetime whether or not the universe itself is infinite in extent. Of course, once you understand the meaning of the term, "mass of the universe" begins to look a bit silly. "Average density" is less silly, but also needs to be explained; do we try to estimate "density now" (e.g. on some hyperslice orthogonal to the world lines of dust particles in an FRW model) or "density averaged over places we can see as it was at the time which we can see now from where we are" (e.g. averaged over past light cone from here and now). This is just the first thing which comes to mind from skimming one paragraph. The article need a lot of work to become useful for a general audience.--- CH 06:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ben Michaelson

Apparent autobiography of a swimmer with questionable notability. Formerly had "Family and Politics", "Quotes", and "Random Facts" sections. I don't exactly know what it means, but another editor added a {{prod2a}} which stated:

D-II swimmer, swam in the Pan Am Games...I'm not convinced he's notable per WP:BIO

-- Omicronpersei8 ( talk) 04:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Vanity article.-- Ageo020 05:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete vanity. Zargulon 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • (Strong?) Keep and Rewrite - 30,000 google hits on "ben michaelson swim", the first two pages of which seem to all be him; The claims of recordholding, all are legitimized by NCAA.org; I'm not exactly a expert at swimming as a sport, but it sounds like he should easily be included in the encyclopedia. Thus, the issue seems to be the writing style of the primary author(s); The answer? {{sofixit}}. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
But if you put "Ben Michaelson" in quotes, it's more like 1,290. -- Omicronpersei8 ( talk) 16:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Partially because "Ben" can be "Benjamin" or "Benny" or "Benjawhatsawhosaphone", or "Michaelson, Ben" or "Michaelson, Benjamin"... Looking through "Ben Michaelson swim", most of those on the first few pages appear to be related to him. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEPOfcourse Michaelson is relevant. He was an outstanding swimmer ( and a former US record holder in the 100 shortcourse meter fly). At one point he was ranked 3rd in the nation. The article certaintly should be kept-- 24.44.45.85 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Keep per 24.44.45.85. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 21:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as follows. I placed the prod2 tag, based on this line in WP:BIO: "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States" (emphasis added). Michaelson did not compete at the highest level of college sports in the US; he was a Division II athlete. That's why I endorsed the proposed deletion. However, there's a blanket clause in WP:BIO: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." Michaelson's records—even if in D-II competition—are still standing. [10](PDF) It's hard to argue against the logic that the record book is part of the historical record. — C.Fred ( talk) 04:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If you understand the sport of swimming you would know that Michaelson did in fact compete at the highest level. While at SCSU he was an amature athlete, but after he was sponsored by Speedo and competed in American swimming's toughest, largest "league": USA Swimming. Michaelson also competed in Olympic Trials, narrowly missing the Olympic team (highest honor for a US swimmer) and competed in the Connocophillips National meets. And as Cfred said, Michaelson made notable contributions and held an American record and still holds records.-- Pearljam1932 18:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the anonymous user. Never thought I'd say that, but this individual holds and held multiple NCAA swimming records and thus meets our WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (GSN)

This series is not a notable series unto itself (GSN is a minor cable network), and Wikipedia doesn't need a borderline-copyvio copy of every "List of Greatest Foo". - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is just going to turn into another mess, like many of the other game show pages. I don't see how the series is notable enough, anyhow. Modor (talk)
  • Weak Keep Wikipedia does keep articles of little known tv shows. if its expanded in the next few weeks, then keep it-- Ageo020 05:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, why should this particular list of the 50 greatest games be on Wikipedia? It's really just GSN's POV, and even though GSN caters to the game show audience I'm not sure it should be here. I'd also point out that we also have the similar 50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (TV Guide), perhaps that should be nominated as well if this one is deleted. BryanG (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Hmm, I was interpreting this more as a list than a full-fledged series, but my fellow editors have pretty much destroyed that argument. Changing to keep per various below. BryanG (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This series represents the opinion of the television network that services the niche audience concerned with game shows. It is notable content. If the article does not develop over the course of the series into something deserving of its own article, the proper course of action would be a proposal for merger, either into the TV Guide list of 50 greatest game shows to create a single "greatest game shows" article or into the GSN article. I have edited this article. In fact, I deleted the prerequisite template that got us to this stage. Erechtheus 05:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as long as it is expanded. TJ Spyke 05:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Erechtheus. If consensus is to delete, perhaps we have a comparision between TV Guide's list and this one? Failing that, maybe a list of all game show rating lists? Or, perhaps, if those solutions fail, possibly have a category of those shows listed in either list, and then sort them so that they are organized, if technically possible? Ian Manka Talk to me! 06:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Del per BryanG (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC).— msh210℠ 07:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Listcruft. BoojiBoy 13:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. TV series are notable by default, especially if broadcast internationally. GSN is not a minor cable network as it is available not only in the US but in Canada as well and produces its own programming. If this were just a list of a magazine or TV show's opinion, that might be another matter, but this is specifically an article about a TV series. 23skidoo 13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Scorpiondollprincess 14:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it is not just a one time special. It is twenty something episodes. Tazz765 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. As 23skidoo said, this is not just a list, but a full-fledged television series airing in prime time on a nationally available cable network. Therefore, I think it deserves an entry. That said, I do think the article could be expanded to include descriptions of the specific episodes shown. Mikibacsi1124 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Erectheus. Lambertman 18:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep. I still think it should stay; I'm merely protesting its quality. :) Lambertman 03:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. GSN has always appeared among the top fifty (odd numerical coincidence) U.S. ad-supported cable networks in CableWorld's list of average prime time ratings. A seven-week, 21-hour series on such a network meets reasonable notability standards. Casey Abell 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per 23skidoo — Fire Fox 21:40, 21 July '06
  • Keep.-- Andresg770 21:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Erechtheus. Many (if not all) of GSN's original programs have their own pages in Wikipedia to boot -- why not this one? (I'd like to delete some options off the list itself, but that's another story.) Amnewsboy 02:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete TV series are NOT notable by default. This is a listcruft program with little real authority (the list was compiled by a few network executives when dreaming up this show?). I don't see any evidence that this is encyclopedically notable or has any real authority Bwithh 06:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment AfD box was deleted by 68.237.218.93 -- I have reverted to restore the box. Erechtheus 13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I wanted the AfD box to be deleted because that list is important to all Game Show fans. Some fans may not remember the list after they watch it. There are shows in the list that didn't air on GSN that people might want to take a look at. Please DO NOT delete this article! - User 68.237.218.93 13:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This is total cruft and borders on copyvio, I also ask that this vote get an extention due to the vandal that removed the notice. -- Shaunvader 10:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment thanks to the attention paid the page by not one but two different editors, the notice was gone for 25 minutes in total. I can't speak to extension policy, so it may be that one would automatically lie. If it's some sort of totality of the circumstances test, I'd hope the prompt replacement would weigh heavily in favor of no extension. Erechtheus 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment The AfD is running 16-5 keep, so an extension seems pointless. Keeping the AfD around for another day or two means the final would be maybe 19-7 keep. Frankly, it's about time to close this one. Casey Abell 22:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Uh, just did a hand count. It's 18-5 keep now. Why bother with an extension? Casey Abell 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can't imagine how this could be considered to border on copyvio, and more than any other TV episodes' descriptions would. This is original programming from a major network, lasting for many weeks, and is worthy of a page. Qaqaq 15:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – A TV series that airs a list is not cruft in-and-of-itself. I also agree with several people on here that GSN is NOT a minor cable network; while it is certainly not on the level of networks like ESPN or MTV, it most definitely has a niche audience (just like ESPN and MTV, incidentally). Speaking of which, a regular list-type show that airs on MTV or ESPN isn't considered cruft, but a list-type show that airs on GSN is? PS – If there is copyvio issues, send it to another editor for a rewrite; problem solved. [[ Briguy52748 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)]] reply
  • Strong keep this is no less crufty than a show like The Greatest Canadian or Hockeyville and it is a very useful reference which is not found elsewhere (not even on GSN's website) - Jord 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep What Qaqaq said. This isn't just a list, it's also a television series airing on a cable network that's available to more than half of US households. I even get it up here in Canada. There are articles on TV series here that are a lot more obscure, or air on networks with much less saturation. Kilraven 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Emophobia

NN Neologism. ghits: [11]-- NMChico24 05:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 CSD G7 - repeatedly blanked by author. Kimchi.sg 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Datafocal

Fails WP:CORP-- NMChico24 05:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Czj 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Page author has been blocked indefinitely due to repeated vandalism. -- NMChico24 11:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Excess dB Entertainment

Plus numerous redirects.

Blatant advert. Already userfied to Excessdb. -- RHaworth 05:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Erin Jennae

Prod tag was removed as well as original speedy tag, nn notable musician 547 googles and the top three are her website which says coming soon, myspace and Tripod. Alexa has no rating, fails WP:Notability WP:MUSIC, WP:NPOV, WP:V, vanity article, reads like a fan magazine and has been recreated and deleted 13 previous times. Ávril ʃáη 05:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete NN musician. TJ Spyke 05:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and salt. If it's been deleted and recreated 13 times, I think it's time that we protect it from ever being made, again. Ryūlóng 05:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete per nom and salt the earth. If this artist acheives notability in the future it can be recreated. -- Scientizzle 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non notable musician. Album is unknown to the mainstream. Looks like a vanity article to me.-- Ageo020 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per nom. To be fair, many of the 13 previous deletes were because a newbie continually recreated the article with just the picture insisting that was a proper article - so it got speedied over and over. — Wknight94 ( talk) 10:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Erin Jennae Burisse is an almost duplicate copy of this article, which should also be considered for deletion. -- Bruce1ee 11:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete - User also uses sockpuppets, and has been informed of WP policy on socks, re-creating, and notability - but continues to argue. HawkerTyphoon 17:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and protect from re-creation. If this looks similar to any of the previous 13 incarnations, make it a speedy deletion. Non-notable musician. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. Support protecting the page from recreation if it really has been deleted 13 times already. RFerreira 21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Rocco Guarino

Fails WP:MUSIC, was the assistant engineer for one album. Te ke 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. BigHaz 06:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my prod, from which I quote: ""Rocco Guarino" gets 355 G-hits." Apparently this guy thinks being an assistant engineer on a notable album is enough to make someone notable. Morgan Wick 06:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 10:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

"We are Slavs who came and settled in this region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians."

Not encyclopedia material. Creator removed my speedy notice so I'm nominating it here. Czj 05:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:NOR. ALso, this is not an article, it is a jumple of disconnected nonsense. -- Hetar 05:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This quote is attributed to Kiro Gligorov, who has the said quotation on his page. I don't think it merits an article by itself.-- Ageo020 05:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per above. Em-jay-es 05:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't quite figure out what point this is trying to make. Doesn't seem like encyclopaedic content. GassyGuy 06:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Surely to the extent that this is encyclopedic it can be worked into Macedonia (region) rather than this awful title. Gazpacho 06:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • HI THERE Feel free to delete this. I do eventually want to create articles, but being my first time I was only having a dabble around. In future text (such as this article) will be written in the discussion pages.06:28, 21 July 2006 Philhellenism (Talk | contribs)
  • Speedy delete as the creator of this article, User:Philhellenism, has approved its deletion. -- Metropolitan90 06:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 'ATTENTION SPEEDY DELETE That is correct, please delete it as this was my first time creating an article... A test run, but I'll tell you what!! I did not expect such a response (LOL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Pacific Surfliner. Mailer Diablo 21:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Surfliner

This page is redundant to the more complete Pacific Surfliner. If this page is kept it should be a redirect to that page. MrHudson 06:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Star Wars: Galaxy

Web role-playing forum with 800 users. Fails WP:WEB. FCYTravis 06:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rje 23:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Little Rubber Feet

Salvaged from WP:PROD, nominated there by User:BlankVerse with reason I can't decide whether this is a hoax or original research, but either way it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia. I thought I'd let the good folks at AFD decide whether it's hoax or OR or neither. (That may be the first time I've used "or" three times in a row.) I guess treat BlankVerse's vote as to delete, but I have no opinion (yet).— msh210℠ 07:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as original research - the feet are real but this article is very very silly - Peripitus (Talk) 07:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it is an old, but popular joke. - Sjledet 12:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per Sjledet, and per Pebkac and RTFM. Perhaps these could all be merged together as sarcastic technobabble, but I'm not sure how at the moment. The Bruce 13:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - good spoof, but search results either seem to be wikipedia mirrors WP:OR or suggest a possible copyvio from anything that may be the original source. LRF is given as an acronym for "little rubber feet", so the term has some independent backup. Ace of Risk 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for WP:V. Clever, but no sources cited. Could be made into a real article I s'pose, but as written it's just an unverifiable joke. Scorpiondollprincess 14:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unverifiable OR. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment For what it's worth, I've actually had a technology sales associate comment on the "LRF Stabilization" of a Desktop computer, telling me that the one desktop with the larger "rubber feet" handled the computer's "natural vibrations" better which meant that overall it would run more smoothly. :p And no, I didn't buy from him. ;) Agne 03:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • ???? - WP:BJAODN candidate? a better fate than deletion. Ace of Risk 13:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • NUKE!. It's not funny enough for BJAODN. For those voting keep, I'll change my mind if you can expand the article, citing your sources. Blank Verse 06:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 tera-deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Giga Society

If Mega is not notable, how is this? Avi 07:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete even though it is a weird trivia-type thing Michael07:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NN Homebrew "High IQ" society. Wikipedia is not a list of things made up at school Mensa meetings. -- GWO
  • Delete unless it can be made to satisfy WP:V. Currently the only references are two websites, which this page largely simply paraphrases. These are not reliable sources; we need reliable citations to prove that this is not just some guy's joke homepage, please, and preferably also some citations showing that it is notorious within the "high-IQ" society community. (Naturally, my delete recommendation must be disregarded if this issue has been fixed by the time the debate is closed.) — Haeleth Talk 10:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Byrgenwulf 11:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE. Not sufficiently notable. Buck ets ofg✐ 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in default of sources indicating this is not just a joke. Anville 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: unverifiable, non-notable absent proof of claims, surely the six allegedly smartest people in the world could design a better website than this? -- The Anome 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V. I commented on Mega, I should comment here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable. — Caesura (t) 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and there's no way to tell if this is just a joke. Unverifiable with reliable sources. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Organization's web site renders illegibly in Firefox 1.5.0.4. IQ of one in a billion and not smart enough to make a legible web site? The organization is a fraud. Phr ( talk) 09:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a bit grudgingly, because I have heard of them from outside sources (too bad I can't remember where). The group, regrettably, may not be notable, or if they are, there's just not that much to say about. Deserves a short mention in High IQ society (which they already have...) -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 12:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and the Anome. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wwwwolf. Their existance is verifiable so it deserves the mention in High IQ society, but not much else. -- NORTH talk 22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Campusbug

Article about yet another social networking website. This one was launched in March, and only claims to have 5,800 users (although I can't find this statistic backed up by the site itself). The site has plenty of pay-to-use services, and this article seems like just a vehicle for advertising to me. Fails to establish notability in any way and thus fails the WP:WEB inclousion criteria. └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 07:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Lezli

I had previously nominated an earlier version of this article for {{db-reason|not notable, [[WP:BIO|wikipedia is not myspace]]}}. Template removed by page's author. Article may still fall under WP:BIO, as it now has links to specific people's websites. I did not want to relist as {{ db}} or {{ prod}}, but felt a discussion is warranted. -- MrDolomite | Talk 07:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong delete It's just an effort by Lezli McDaniel to keep her name in Wiki by hidiing it among others. No need for a dab page until some genuine reason to disambiguate arises. Dlyons493 Talk 12:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - concur with Dlyons493 -- Whpq 12:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as vanity - why do people insist on embarassing themselves like this? Byrgenwulf 13:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Byrgenwulf's comments. Embarassing vanity Scorpiondollprincess 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all comments above. Anville 14:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete She made a stencil! wow! Do some people have no shame? -- Charlesknight 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete hopelessly embarassing vanity. "multi-talented firecracker"?! It's sickening to imagine that anyone out there could write about themselves like this. Shame on you. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete 'Well known stencils'? Well known to whom? -- DarkAudit 00:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The Black Stripe

Article about a website which reads like an ad, and fails to establish notability (and thus seemingly fails the WP:WEB inclusion guidelines). {{prod}} tag previously removed. └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 07:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Integrate a brief description of the service into an appropriate pre-existing article, if such a thing even exists. But if not, delete regardless. Czj 07:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and WP:OR. Yomangani 12:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Yomangani, it is in extremely poor form to delete my AfD vote. Czj 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Indeed it is, although it was unintentional. I've put it back and apologize. Yomangani 22:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom -- Whpq 12:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Slam dunk -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Artw 21:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Treeskunk Productions

Non-notable machinima production group. Vanity, written by a team member. Only one released production, an article on which has been twice deleted. Only other claim to fame is that it almost got a nomination for the 2005 Rockets on Prisoner Awards. Googling "Treeskunk Productions" -site:treeskunk.com (filtering out hits from official site) gets 179 hits, 37 unique. This article was also recreated only an hour after being speedied. I did not list it for speedy as a recreation as the deleting admin didn't seem to give a reason.-- Drat ( Talk) 10:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 transwikied to Wiktionary by NMChico24. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Aristophrenia

Non-notable neologism. ghits: [12] I have transwikied this after reviewing Wiktionary for the first time. -- NMChico24 09:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Transwiki to wiktionary. Yomangani 12:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Appears to be a real word. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I realise this word shows up in some online dictionaries, but it only comes up in google 129 times. So, it doesn't appear to be very widely used, and it's certainly not in Merriam-Webster [13]. It just seems like an underutilised neologism to me, IMHO. -- NMChico24 22:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwikification Complete After signing up for a Wiktionary account and curing myself of my ignorance of how that project works and what's acceptable, I have moved the definition there. — NM Chico 24 07:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Although, now that I'm reading this really wordy transwiki instruction page, I'm not sure I did it correctly. Someone might want to check my work, because I think I missed the middle "transwiki space" step. In any case, the article is on Wiktionary now. — NM Chico 24 08:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 by Dragonflysixtyseven. Kimchi.sg 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sheffield's Box

Yahoo! Answers minor hoax, no other Googles. PROD contested. FCYTravis 10:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Intimate spaces

Notability not established SJK 10:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom and for crystal balling. The event may become notable after it's happened, though. BigHaz 10:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, you're right. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Ruaraidh-dobson 12:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Crystal Ball. Scorpiondollprincess 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-notable crystal balling. - Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Galizisches_Infantrie_Regiment

It's an unintelligible list. Tagged with "wikify" since April 2006. Krankman 10:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 15:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ronald John Piscotty Jr

Vanity Page Phoenix Hacker 10:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Krankman 10:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Non-notable biography. -- Sbluen 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. User:Angr 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Antony_Phillips

Non-notable, vanity, bias/POV, non-factual Firi e n § 11:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. "Famous for being famous" is never a good sign where notability is concerned. 210.49.65.142 11:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Sorry, that was me above. BigHaz 11:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - brenneman {L} 02:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The_Ultranet

The Ultranet is up for deletion as an advert for a non-notable web forum, as well as probable vanity. 977 Google hits, most of which are actually for a product completely unrelated to this message board. See also this Afd. My advice is:

  • Delete Byrgenwulf 10:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN homebrew society. Self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a list of things made up at school Mensa meetings. -- GWO
  • Strong delete Spam, non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 12:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - This is an interesting and notable group that seeks to bring together creative thinkers, not only those with high IQs. DrL 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Note: User:DrL made the initial version of this page, and appears to be a WP:SPA. With a few trivial exceptions, every one of this user's contributions are about related topics The Ultranet, Mega Foundation, Christopher Michael Langan, etc. -- Phr ( talk) 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I'm an active Wikipedian and this is a legitimate entry. I am only making one vote here, so why all the fuss to contest it? DrL 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note that this page's content used to exist at Ultranet (High-IQ society). Per discussion on that article's Talk page, I merged the non- vanispamcruft content (what there was of it) to Christopher Michael Langan. Resurrecting that page with no discussion whatsoever is a bad violation of common practice. Delete. Anville 14:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I did make comments regarding this page and the merge suggestions. My comments were ignored and the page was merged. So much for common practice. DrL 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That's ridiculous. Of the articles you think should be deleted, half don't exist on this encyclopaedia (they're red links). The Giga Society is also being AfD'ed at the moment, and I see no reason why the others should stay, either. I'm sure they will be removed eventually. Byrgenwulf 19:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you are reaching back from a future state in which Wikipedia is cleansed of all high IQ references (or maybe I didn't realize WP was case-sensitive). I just noticed that Giga does have an AfD and I do see the same old clique ... DrL 20:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I appreciate the humour, DrL: when I read that comment of yours, as you know, those were red links which I see you have fixed now. Please read my comments on the other AfD for an explanation...I'm not offended by IQ (I loathe political correctness), and as I have repeatedly said, an article on "high IQ subculture" could be worthwhile...but every little club or society does not need an encyclopaedia article. Byrgenwulf 07:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; I would have hoped people associated with a high-IQ society would be smart enough to realise that it's not good to make misleading claims like "The Ultranet has been frequently discussed in the popular media, including the BBC", when the only evidence given to support this claim of notability is a single link to a BBC interview in which the forum is mentioned precisely once, as a passing reference. That is so far from "discussion" as to make the claim border on plain dishonesty. — Haeleth Talk 21:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This is an interview by Damien Fowler of the BBC. It features three members of the Ultranet, including two directors of the Mega Foundation, discussing the Foundation and its first major project, The Ultranet. That much is clear to anyone that reads it. DrL 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It is impossible for me to comprehend how mature and highly intelligent men can involve themselves in such detrimental "boy/fights" of this sort; specially, when they are "supposed" to be HiQ'ers. This personal barrage leaves no one untouched of scorn. It is absurd to delete anyones serious work on these undignified grounds.You must bear in mind that: a theory is just a theory, a theory it is. Joely R. Villalba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.90.44 ( talk • contribs)
  • Merge this and all similar Langan-related high-IQ-society articles into a list in Langan's biographical article. Phr ( talk) 12:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Тhis has gone beyond being serious. It's become a joke. Wiki as a concept sucumbs to its own openess due to the will of a handful of people who make judgments on whether articles are qualified for entry into an encyclopaedia, yet none of the handful involved has any qualifications to do so whatsover, other than being here long enough. That makes Wiki an utterly silly thing. There are thousands after thousands of entries of anonimous people, but the handful of puberty (or God knows what other problems) striken guys is after the IQ related ones most likely in order to prove to themselves that "these horrible, undiscovered creatures of misterious aptitude can be overcomed afterall". Well, you know what, Wiki is not all that important as you would like it to be. Stevan Damjanovic
  • Comment And you know, the joke is on Wikipedia and the admins. As you can see from Byrgenwulf's contribution history, his very first edit to Wikipedia was on July 2, 2006. He made a few innocuous edits (and waited a week, patient boy) before beginning his onslaught against the CTMU article (and everything else related to Chris Langan). In light of this and the other specific deceptive tactics outlined by Tim Smith on the AfD review page, this user should be permanently banned. DrL 14:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to have become a massive campaign now to thoroughly discredit me: if any passing admins could do something about it, I would be grateful. "Singlemindedness", DrL? Compare your editing history and mine...see how many different articles I have worked on, look at the article I am busy with in my sandbox etc. Drl, on the other hand has only edited articles to do with Langan, as has been pointed out by many over the past few days (not that that isn't her right, of course). And as for "deceptiveness"...Tim Smith never said I was being deceptive, he actually expressed willingness to work with me because I seemed the most co-operative among the editors who wished the CTMU to go. I think "deceptive", DrL, might however be used to describe linking to an out of date editing history, as you have done above. I am not making mayhem, but trying to make Wikipedia a legitimately better encyclopaedia, not by filling it with vanispamcruftisement, but by cleaning up articles that need help, writing new ones on neglected topics, and so on. And I actually apologised to DrL (see her talk page) for if what I have done has caused upset, because I strongly believe DrL is personally involved in many of these articles (I could be wrong, but an apology is not out of place, even then). Please stop this nonsense now, DrL. Byrgenwulf 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Byrgenwulf, you have been outed for exactly what you are, an anti-Langan critic using Wikipedia to carry out a personal vendetta and making a mockery of the project in the process. Anyone can examine your contribution history and read about your underhanded tactics on the AfD review page. They can also read your comments to others ...
Bergenwulf to Tox on this page: "The CTMU and its proponents have blown their chances with me now, after Asmodeus' slanderous comments and lies about me."
Asmodeus wrote nothing "slanderous" [sic] about you except to point out your many mistakes that gave you away as a philosophical neophyte. You have discredited only yourself. DrL 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "It is impossible for me to comprehend how mature and highly intelligent men can involve themselves in such detrimental "boy/fights" of this sort; specially, when they are "supposed" to be HiQ'ers. This personal barrage leaves no one untouched of scorn. It is absurd to delete anyones serious work on these undignified grounds.You must bear in mind that: a theory is just a theory, a theory it is. Joely R. Villalba" KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.84.176 ( talk • contribs)
  • Thank you for stopping by; please discuss here rather than the article page. DrL 15:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems that this comment by an anon using IP address 4.234.84.176 was moved here from Talk:Mega Foundation by DrL ( talk · contribs), who has done this several times (see her contribs). I think this was inappropriate since it amounts to taking someone's comment out of context. --- CH 23:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Newbie's first day - Welcome to Wikipedia! DrL 17:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
If DrL is implying that Massmato is a sock created only to vote in this AfD, in fact it appears that this user voted in a number of AfD's that day.--- CH 23:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Mega Foundation, then copyedit mercilessly. I don't care which is the target article, but they appear more or less notable, given some press coverage. Luna Santin 17:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is a reasonable suggestion as there is a lot of overlap. I would suggest Mega Foundation as the main article and The Ultranet as a redirect to Mega Foundation. DrL 19:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society
--- CH 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment User CH/Hillman evidently fails to understand what a "shill" is. Strangely, the definition is right there on the Wikipedia page to which he links. Here's how "shill" is defined on that page: "A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer."
The author of this article is not selling goods or services; the Ultranet is a project of the Mega Foundation, a nonprofit (charitable purpose) entity obliged to spend everything it takes in on its own maintenance. Nor is the author playing the role of seller or customer. Thus, the "shilling" allegation is just an abuse of the deletion process.
The Wikipedia page continues: "In some cases, the members of an organization or the employees of a company may monitor and/or participate in public discussions and groups. Such people are not shills, since they don't attempt to mislead others." Anyone accusing anyone else of "shilling" would therefore need to present evidence that misleading information has been included in the article. If that were going to happen, it would already have happened.
Wikipedia's anti-shilling guidelines are intended to prevent hucksters from using Wikipedia to fatten their bank accounts and enhance their personal prospects and the value of their personal interests. But that clearly isn't the case here. So please desist with the abusive and unsubstantiated allegations. Asmodeus 19:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Asmodeus, if you had read further in that article, you would find here the following sentence: "In online discussion media, such as message boards, discussion forums, and newsgroups, shills may pose as independent experts, satisfied consumers, or “innocent” parties with specific opinions in order to further the interests of an organization in which they have an interest, such as a commercial vendor or special-interest group." Now, whatever the articles of incorporation of the Mega foundation might be, and even taking into account that Wikipedia is not a message board or a "blog" (despite how some people choose to use it), the MF surely counts as a "special interest group". Therefore, someone who is affiliated to that group, particularly in an official capacity, and acts in a forum such as Wikipedia in manner promoting the interests of that group (like demanding that it have an article about it when it hardly merits it), without declaring their interests, is shilling. By definition. Moreover, DrL was caught posting links in the "Chicken or the Egg" article, posting links to the Mega Foundation website which ask for money to view (proof: here is her edit; this is the link she posted). Now, I'm not sure where that money goes to, whether it is the Mega Foundation's coffers or Langan's own pocket, and nor do I care. But I do think that this action constitutes a gross abuse of Wikipedia for monetary gain. And, once again, shilling, as well as "link spam", Vanispamcruftisement and countless other offences. Byrgenwulf 20:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Oh, please. I'd linked to that page because it had a table of contents which showed that the cited article was indeed included. DrL 20:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Of course, if the link I posted above suddenly goes dead or changes in nature (like by not soliciting money anymore), we'll all know what's happened...but that's fine, because I have captured a copy of it. But, why not just link straight to the table of contents, then? Byrgenwulf 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That would have been my preference, but the TOC was a pdf page that did not identify the book. So I linked to the page that talked about the book, and also linked to the TOC. True, there was a link to purchase the book. But I couldn't find a better link and wanted to add a citation. WP:AGF, please. DrL 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
That's a feeble explanation, I think. The link in question wasn't just some obscure little button on the corner of the page, the sole purpose of that page is to sell copies of Langan's book: right in the middle is a big $10 price tag, with Paypal information, etc. etc. Right at the bottom is a tiny little link to the ToC, which is clearly an ancillary purpose of that page. And I find it very difficult to assume good faith, DrL, in light of the amount of "good faith" you have assumed about me and my intentions. Nonetheless, I merely have merely stated facts: other users may interpret them however they wish. Byrgenwulf 20:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Participants in this AfD should be aware that its initiator is engaging in vendetta. User Byrgenwulf registered at Wikipedia on July 2, 2006, three weeks ago, and launched an all-out editing/AfD attack on Christopher Langan, his notable and widely-publicized theory the CTMU (which Byrgenwulf irrationally disputes, but was quickly shown not to comprehend), the Mega Foundation, the Ultranet, and so on ad nauseam. Byrgenwulf even hurled himself into an AfD against an IQ society to which Langan once belonged, within minutes of its inception through the offices of a prior confederate. To illicitly gain support for his personal blitzkrieg against the CTMU, Byrgenwulf transparently misled and recruited people sympathetic to his viewpoint from areas of the Wikipedia web complex not directly related to the topic of that article, tarring it in the process. This is called "abuse of the deletion process", and it violates Wikipedia policy.
User Byrgenwulf is in the deceptive habit of demanding verification for everything he disputes - that is, everything he can dispute - until he manages to identify a verificative link which he can paint as violating some aspect of Wikipedia policy (all nonprofit entities solicit donations; they need to do so in order to survive, and nobody is allowed to personally profit from this). This gives him a pretext for expanding his attack, preferably with accompaniment by an unwitting chorus which he has actively misled and recruited from inappropriate sectors of the Wikipedia community. Regarding Byrgenwulf's spurious "shilling" allegations, people who post articles on Wikipedia are virtually all interested in the topics of those articles, and therefore belong to "special interest groups" associated with those topics. Ordinarily, they do not post a detailed confession regarding the exact nature of their interest; it is sufficient that they maintain neutrality, verify their edits, and maintain relevance to the topic at hand. User Byrgenwulf is simply attempting, once again, to twist and misrepresent standard practice at Wikipedia in order to gain a dishonest advantage over his victims.
This is all now a matter of record. With all due respect, I ask that Byrgenwulf at least try to tell the truth (if that is possible). Asmodeus 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Anyone concerned by the frantic bluster above is invited to look at the Mega Foundation AfD for my comments. Byrgenwulf 22:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply


This is very important to know, and yes, as Byrgenwulf himself says, it is very easy to see for oneself that what Asmodeus is saying is true. Just follow a bit of Byrgenwulf's history. Where one is coming from tells us enough about where it leads to follow him. StevanMD 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - brenneman {L} 02:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mega Foundation

Mega Foundation is up for deletion as an advert for a non-notable society, as well as probable vanity. 712 Google hits, many of which are unrelated to this society, despite its alleged press coverage (the citations in the article all point to society's webpage anyway). See also this AfD. My advice is:

  • Delete Byrgenwulf 10:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN homebrew society. Self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a list of things made up at school Mensa meetings. -- GWO
  • Delete spam, non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 12:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - This is a notable organization. I've added citations to verify that. DrL 13:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
CommentThree out of those four citations are not about the society, but about one of its founders. When I suggested to DrL that the society article be merged with the founder's bio, she said that it would make more sense to delete the article altogether than merge it(see the talk page). That's why it's here. Byrgenwulf 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - While Langan is the focus of some of these articles, the foundation is mentioned in each by name. I just included this to establish verification from an outside source. This is a non-profit foundation and not a high IQ society. DrL 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment and? Just because the foundation is mentioned doesn't make it notable. It just proves that it exists. BigHaz 23:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. No comment. danielmryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.35.112 ( talk • contribs)
    • AfD is not a vote. If you do not say why you think this should be kept, the closing admin will be well within his/her rights to ignore your recommendation altogether. — Haeleth Talk 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Langan. Do not keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I would like to make a note here that some individuals are targeting Chris Langan and any group that has any connection to him. They have already succeeded in deleting the CTMU article and the Mega Society article. They are also trying to delete The Ultranet, Mega Foundation, Ronald Hoeflin, Nathan Haselbauer and possibly others. It doesn't seem right that one clique should have such a great influence on Wikipedia. DrL 18:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That sounds rather paranoid, and doesn't accord with the facts. I nominated this and the Ultranet, while other people nominated those other articles entirely unbeknownst to be. What I think has happened is that the CTMU fiasco has opened a can of worms; all the non-notable, vanity-ridden articles in this particular "genre" are being rooted out by all manner of people - not a "clique" - and listed for deletion because they are not encyclopaedic. Byrgenwulf 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It doesn't sound paranoid at all. Why don't you tell me why Prometheus_Society was not attacked, but The Ultranet was? Similar groups, but The Ultranet is larger and was mentioned in several press articles (whereas PS was not). (Whatever happened to WP:V???) DrL 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment DrL, no-one and nothing is being "attacked" here. I don't really care about high IQ societies, personally, but I do care about Wikipedia being used by people to glorify themselves, their lovers, or their organisations by writing articles about them and then demanding they stay here on such tenuous grounds. I run a small non-profit organisation, and by the standards you are applying, DrL, I could write an article about it and put it here (it's been in the press a few times etc. etc.). But I don't, because I have self-respect, and because I am not vain enough to need Wikipedia to somehow "legitimise" or "verify" my organisation, even if I make the feeble excuse that "the article is to inform people": my organisation does not merit an encyclopaedia article at the moment, and I have the self confidence to admit that. I think the dignified thing to do is to wait until someone else sees the group as having sufficient import to merit an encyclopaedia article about it: this isn't a directory, a search engine, or a "who's who"; it is a reference work, a tertiary source. And, an encyclopaedia article about an NPO should discuss its myriad achievements and the contributions it has made to society (that determines its "notability"). I see none of that in the Mega Foundation article, which simply reads like a blurb in a business directory, with links to a website at the bottom. If you're so concerned, DrL, about all the other articles on these groups, why don't you nominate them for an AfD? Unless, that is, this "DrL" account is solely restricted to commenting on a certain individual, his ideas, and his clubs. Byrgenwulf 06:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This is an objective entry about this organization. The reason that I kept it brief was to maintain that objectivity, keep it informational and not make it sound like a promo. Your post above is ad hominem and out of line. DrL 11:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Please tell me in what way what I wrote above is an "ad hominem" and "out of line"? I certainly didn't intend that. Byrgenwulf 12:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It is impossible for me to comprehend how mature and highly intelligent men can involve themselves in such detrimental "boy/fights" of this sort; specially, when they are "supposed" to be HiQ'ers. This personal barrage leaves no one untouched of scorn. It is absurd to delete anyones serious work on these undignified grounds.You must bear in mind that: a theory is just a theory, a theory it is. Joely R. Villalba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.90.44 ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia is not a repository of people's "theories". It is an encyclopaedia, which means it is a tertiary source. But I must say, I agree with the comment on the "high IQ" subculture's behaviour: I would never have expected this...please, though, do not make the mistake of thinking that everyone with a high IQ is necessarily involved with these clubs or their petty squabbling for precedence; these groups have a tiny fraction of the membership they statistically could have - maybe that's why they feel they need to use an encyclopaedia to advertise. Byrgenwulf 06:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to the admins ... and anyone here to vote or discuss. Please consider the history and actions of this AfD nominator. As you can see from Byrgenwulf's contribution history, his very first edit to Wikipedia was on July 2, 2006. He made a few innocuous edits (and patiently waited a week) before beginning his totally obsessive onslaught against the CTMU article (and everything else related to Chris Langan, including many high IQ societies and high IQ individuals). In light of this evidence of his single-mindedness and the other specific deceptive tactics that are outlined by Tim Smith on the AfD review page, this user should be permanently banned for making a mockery of Wikipedia's AfD policy and creating general mayhem. DrL 14:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Response: This seems to have become a massive campaign now to thoroughly discredit me: if any passing admins could do something about it, I would be grateful. "Singlemindedness", DrL? Compare your editing history and mine...see how many different articles I have worked on, look at the article I am busy with in my sandbox etc. Drl, on the other hand has only edited articles to do with Langan, as has been pointed out by many over the past few days (not that that isn't her right, of course). And as for "deceptiveness"...Tim Smith never said I was being deceptive, he actually expressed willingness to work with me because I seemed the most co-operative among the editors who wished the CTMU to go. I think "deceptive", DrL, might however be used to describe linking to an out of date editing history, as you have done above. I am not making mayhem, but trying to make Wikipedia a legitimately better encyclopaedia, not by filling it with vanispamcruftisement, but by cleaning up articles that need help, writing new ones on neglected topics, and so on. And I actually apologised to DrL (see her talk page) for if what I have done has caused upset, because I strongly believe DrL is personally involved in many of these articles (I could be wrong, but an apology is not out of place, even then). Please stop this nonsense now, DrL. Byrgenwulf 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Byrgenwulf, you have been outed for exactly what you are, an anti-Langan critic using Wikipedia to carry out a personal vendetta and making a mockery of the project in the process. Anyone can examine your contribution history and read about your underhanded tactics on the AfD review page. They can also read your comments to others ...
Bergenwulf to Tox on this page: "The CTMU and its proponents have blown their chances with me now, after Asmodeus' slanderous comments and lies about me."
Asmodeus wrote nothing "slanderous" [sic] about you except to point out your many mistakes that gave you away as a philosophical neophyte. You have discredited only yourself. DrL 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh rubbish. I merely refused to indulge Asmodeus in a proper discussion on the issues at that particular time, leaving him to have the last word in many cases, which may create the illusion that he was right; discussions on philosophy of science take much space and time, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to host them. Moreover, many of the condescending remarks Asmodeus made about me were actually on points which may be disputed (I merely chose not to dispute them there, but have expressed my willingness to do elsewhere). This comment by a world renowned mathematician to one of Asmodeus' sneers illustrates my point that Asmodeus is not necessarily right in his reading of the situation. Byrgenwulf 19:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

"It is impossible for me to comprehend how mature and highly intelligent men can involve themselves in such detrimental "boy/fights" of this sort; specially, when they are "supposed" to be HiQ'ers. This personal barrage leaves no one untouched of scorn. It is absurd to delete anyones serious work on these undignified grounds.You must bear in mind that: a theory is just a theory, a theory it is. Joely R. Villalba" KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.84.176 ( talk • contribs)

  • Thank you for stopping by; please discuss here rather than the article's talk page. DrL 15:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with The Ultranet, then copyedit mercilessly. I don't care which is the target article, but they appear more or less notable. Luna Santin 17:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is a reasonable suggestion as there is a lot of overlap. I would suggest Mega Foundation as the main article and The Ultranet as a redirect to Mega Foundation. DrL 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per luna santin. - Quiddity 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. This org doesn't seem notable to me, and I am concerned about possible manipulation of this AfD vote. I note that from her contribs and from other internal evidence, DrL ( talk · contribs) appears to be "Dr. Gina Lynne LoSasso", to whom the megafoundation.org website is registered. If so, I think it would be well for these users to disclose their identity, if for no other reason than to prevent giving the impression that they are shilling. To prevent possible misunderstanding, note that I acknowledge that it is not always inappropriate for X to edit and article about himself/herself/her organization, but in such cases, in my view, common sense and good manners dictate that X should disclose his/her identity. I believe that good edits will be easily recognized as such. But here we are talking about edits which seem to several users including myself to be misleading or unbalanced, and in such cases it may be appropriate to inquire about the IRL identity of the users who made those edits. DrL complained " I would like to make a note here that some individuals are targeting Chris Langan and any group that has any connection to him" This remark suggests--- at least to me--- that she may not fully appreciate the magnitude of the problem at Wikipedia with vanity cruft. I see no reason to think that anyone is "targeting high IQ organizations", but I do see good reason to try to remove vanity cruft. I think this goal would be best served in the case of Mega Foundation by deleting the article. --- CH 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Please see also two AfD votes for related articles (both now deleted)
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society
and see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ultranet for a related current AfD. --- CH 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That is not my name and I would very much appreciate it if you take your baseless accusations elsewhere. For your information, this was the fifth initial I tried when I set up my account. But thank you very much for asking. Wikipedia also thanks you for coming by, casting your vote and adding your misinformation to the pool. Hail, Wikipedia! DrL 23:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
DrL, if I am wrong about that, please provide enough verifiable information about your IRL identity to convince me. This is not an accusation I make lightly and if I am wrong I would certainly want the opportunity to correct the record! The problem is that the internal evidence is to my mind so strong, and your denial so weak, that I don't feel that in good faith I can simply accept your denial without being presented with any contrary evidence. --- CH 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Enough, already. User CH/Hillman has no right to demand anyone's personal identity, and evidently fails to understand what a "shill" is. Strangely, the definition is right there on the Wikipedia page to which he linked above. Here's how "shill"is defined on that page: "A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer."
The person who wrote this article is neither selling goods and services - the Mega Foundation is a nonprofit (charitable purpose) entity obligated to spend everything it takes in on its own maintenance, with nothing left over to put in anyone's pocket - nor in any way playing the role of "seller" or "customer", "enthusiastically" or otherwise. All he/she is doing is describing the Mega Foundation as it is described in its own articles of incorporation. So "shilling" is out of the question. It's just a nasty accusation designed to abuse the deletion process.
The Wikipedia page continues: "In some cases, the members of an organization or the employees of a company may monitor and/or participate in public discussions and groups. Such people are not shills, since they don't attempt to mislead others."
Now, here's an important news flash for Hillman and those who are citing his abusive opinions. Here at Wikipedia, using a handle is not considered "misleading others". If it were, then 99% of the people on this site would be "misleading others". So to establish "shilling", we'd need to find some piece of misleading information in the article. But CH/Hillman doesn't seem to have done that.
Wikipedia's anti-shilling guidelines are sound. They prevent hucksters from using Wikipedia to fatten their bank accounts and enhance their personal prospects and the value of their personal interests. But that clearly isn't the case here. If anyone wishes to argue otherwise, the first thing he/she needs to do is substantiate his/her allegations.
But of course, if that were going to happen, it would already have happened. Asmodeus 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Asmodeus, if you had read further in that article, you would find here the following sentence: "In online discussion media, such as message boards, discussion forums, and newsgroups, shills may pose as independent experts, satisfied consumers, or “innocent” parties with specific opinions in order to further the interests of an organization in which they have an interest, such as a commercial vendor or special-interest group." Now, whatever the articles of incorporation of the Mega foundation might be, and even taking into account that Wikipedia is not a message board or a "blog" (despite how some people choose to use it), the MF surely counts as a "special interest group". Therefore, someone who is affiliated to that group, particularly in an official capacity, and acts in a forum such as Wikipedia in manner promoting the interests of that group (like demanding that it have an article about it when it hardly merits it), without declaring their interests, is shilling. By definition. Moreover, DrL was caught posting links in the "Chicken or the Egg" article, posting links to the Mega Foundation website which ask for money to view (proof: here is her edit; this is the link she posted). Now, I'm not sure where that money goes to, whether it is the Mega Foundation's coffers or Langan's own pocket, and nor do I care. But I do think that this action constitutes a gross abuse of Wikipedia for monetary gain. And, once again, shilling, as well as "link spam", Vanispamcruftisement and countless other offences. Byrgenwulf 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Oh, please. I'd linked to that page because it had a table of contents which showed that the cited article was indeed included. DrL 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
See the Ultranet AfD for my response, I'm not going to have a parallel conversation. The page itself contains no table of contents, merely a link to one, and so I do not understand why DrL could not have linked to that page instead. Byrgenwulf 20:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That would have been my preference, but the TOC was a pdf page that did not identify the book. So I linked to the page that talked about the book, and also linked to the TOC. True, there was a link to purchase the book. But I couldn't find a better link and wanted to add a citation. WP:AGF, please. DrL 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User Byrgenwulf has already been caught massively abusing the deletion process. He has a blatant vendetta against Christopher Langan and everything for which Langan stands and with which he is associated. (Byrgenwulf has nominated a number of articles for deletion in the last several days, and Langan is the common denominator in all of them.) That is what he is doing here, and how this AfD was motivated. This user (Byrgenwulf) is in the deceptive habit of demanding verification for everything he disputes - that is, everything he can dispute - until he manages to identify a verificative link which he can paint as violating some aspect of Wikipedia policy (all nonprofit entities solicit donations; they need to do so in order to survive, and nobody is allowed to personally profit from this). This gives him a pretext for expanding his attack, preferably with accompaniment by an unwitting chorus which he has actively misled and recruited from inappropriate sectors of the Wikipedia community. Regarding Byrgenwulf's spurious "shilling" allegations, people who post articles on Wikipedia are virtually all interested in the topics of those articles, and therefore belong to "special interest groups" associated with those topics. Ordinarily, they do not post a detailed confession regarding the exact nature of their interest; it is sufficient that they maintain neutrality, verify their edits, and maintain relevance to the topic at hand. User Byrgenwulf is simply attempting, once again, to twist and misrepresent standard practice at Wikipedia in order to gain a dishonest advantage over his victims. (What a surprise.) Asmodeus 21:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Once again, Asmodeus, you are blatantly wrong, and seemingly trying desperately to distort the facts and attack my character because I have raised uncomfortable issues. Not all the articles I have nominated for deletion have been related to Langan - unless he is also into " chaos magic" and a collaborator in the development of Hyperwarp 6D, another crackpot theory of everything which just got deleted (much less acrimoniously than the CTMU - in fact no-one opposed its deletion). I merely wish to see Wikipedia cleared of the plague of vanispamcruftisement from which it has been suffering, and it seems many other users also feel that its purpose is not to provide a worldwide open source "blog" for people to post their achievements here. And Wikipedia is also not here as a platform for NPOs, no matter how noble their aims, to solicit funding. Byrgenwulf 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It is also insulting to all the other participants in this AfD to insinuate that I have been manipulating them and to call them an "unwitting chorus" as you did, as if they couldn't make their minds up for themselves. I would certainly take offence at that. Byrgenwulf 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm simply informing people of the facts. Byrgenwulf registered at Wikipedia on July 2, 2006, three weeks ago, and launched an all-out editing/AfD attack on Christopher Langan, his notable and widely-publicized theory the CTMU (which Byrgenwulf was quickly shown not to comprehend), the Mega Foundation, the Ultranet, and so on ad nauseam. Byrgenwulf even hurled himself into an AfD against an IQ society to which Langan once belonged, within minutes of its inception through the offices of a prior confederate. To illicitly gain support for his personal blitzkrieg against the CTMU, Byrgenwulf transparently misled and recruited people sympathetic to his viewpoint from areas of the Wikipedia web complex not directly related to the topic of that article, tarring it in exactly the way we see here. This is all a matter of record. With all due respect, I ask that Byrgenwulf at least try to tell the truth. Asmodeus 21:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Are you really insinuating that the members of Wikipedia:Project Physics are all blithering idiots who can so easily be misled by such a stupid, incompetent fool as you make me out to be? For example, the eminent mathematician Arthur Rubin, who said that the CTMU would be credible only among pseudo-intellectuals, and caught you out on grounds of factual errancy in one of your other rants against me? I have never been "shown not to comprehend" that silly "theory", because I have not wanted to indulge in a debate on it here (my snide remarks on the talk page notwithstanding), but I have repeatedly extended an invitation to anyone willing to defend it to discuss it elsewhere, an offer which has been ignored, repeatedly. Moreover, my efforts in the CTMU article led to the discovery of a "walled garden" of vanity, advertising and illicit soliciting of funds (the "chicken and egg" article wasn't the only place that fundraising link was posted), none of which Wikipedia exists to support. Looking at the contributions of DrL and Asmodeus should prove that they are both solely interested, here at Wikipedia, in editing articles pertaining to Langan and his great and wondrous achievements. That is a matter of record; what Asmodeus has said is a matter of opinion, I am afraid, and a grossly slanted opinion at that. I would be ashamed of myself, if I were Asmodeus, carrying on like this. But perhaps that's just a peculiarity on my part. Byrgenwulf 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • You certainly succeeded in misleading some Wikipedia:Project Physics members. Again, this is a matter of record (you deliberately misrepresented a philosophical theory as a "pseudoscientific" theory of "physics" to them after being repeatedly corrected on that score). Arthur Rubin - who has not actually demonstrated any familiarlty with the CTMU - is apparently one of your unwitting victims. You certainly should be ashamed of yourself, if only for contriving to compromise the reputation of somebody being promoted, whether justifiably or not, as "an eminent mathematician". I would not have edited the CTMU article at all save for your discombobulated attack on it, and the same probably goes for others. You most certainly have been "shown not to comprehend" the CTMU, and yes indeed, it began right on the talk page for the original article. Not unrelatedly, there is just one thing the matter with your "repeated invitation" to "discuss the CTMU elsewhere": you clearly don't know enough about it to make it worth anyone's while, and you argue in such a way that such a discussion would be like trying to pin down a squirming eel. (Perhaps you could persuade Mr. Rubin to stake his reputation on such a discussion? Now, that might actually intrigue somebody.) Asmodeus 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't know Rubin from a bar of soap; moreover, I'm sure he has better ways to spend his time than disputing crackpot theories. Suffice it to say anyone bothered to read through all of this verbiage will soon come to understand what is afoot here, despite Asmodeus' ongoing rants. Byrgenwulf 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Hillman; WP:VSCA again. Love those reliable sources: Muscle & Fitness indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Langan article; this fails WP:ORG. -- McGeddon 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Langan or delete. No evidence this is in any way significant Just zis Guy you know? 12:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Massmatto 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep An informative and rather minimal article on a notable and well-verified topic. Asmodeus 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As for DrL's claim that these pages are being "attacked", they are being "attacked" because they are a walled garden of non-notable vanity pages. -- NORTH talk 22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above.-- Cúchullain t/ c 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above or merge as a second best but viable option. GassyGuy 06:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, clearly, as a walled garden of non-notable vanity. Some of the participants in this debate should be ashamed of their behaviour, naming no names. There's a very good study of British high-IQ societies somewhere that looks into just why so many of them end up as small, paranoid cliques with far-right, eugenicist ideas: I'll have to look that out some time. Vizjim 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Jesse E. Lane

Was de-prodded on the grounds that he's a professional hockey player, but he isn't. Both of the teams for which he's played, the Hull Olympiques and the Victoriaville Tigres, are junior teams, and for the past three years he's just been a college student. Does not meet the guidelines at WP:BIO, so delete. User:Angr 11:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, not notable. -- Missmarple 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm confused. The article states, "was selected by the Carolina Hurricanes in the National Hockey League Entry Draft." Is that not true? According to WP:BIO, "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league" are notable. Under those grounds, I think he should stay. A quick google search reveals Internet Hockey Database, Carolina Hurricanes, Hockey's Future, and CHL all support the claim that Lane was selected by the Carolina Hurricanes. Doesn't that qualify him under WP:BIO athlete guidelines? I'm afraid I don't know enough about hockey to pass judgment on any of this yet. Am I missing something? Scorpiondollprincess 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If he had ever actually taken the ice for the Hurricanes for even one game, I would say keep, but he didn't. This scenario has been discussed heavily with regard to baseball and football (soccer) players. He was drafted by a major team four years ago, but apparently ended his career after the 2003-04 season without ever making it out of the minors. (Note that the article cited above from "Hockey's Future" is dated 2002, which demonstrates the problems with crystal balling.) Fan-1967 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Fan1967. If he ever plays in the NHL, then by all means, write a new article on him (as this article is psychotically NPOV and advertise-y, if one can advertise for a hockey player). As of right now, he's non-notable. -- Kicking222 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hole in the doughnut effect

Google gives 13 hits for this term. Probably original research of some kind. -- Missmarple 11:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Bewitching, bothering and bewildering. Zargulon 12:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as original research. The confusing drafting appears to simply be discussing the consolidation effect that large stores/malls have on shopping habits but that's not got anything to do with doughnuts. MLA 12:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Incoherent claptrap. -- GWO
  • Keep this article is about an ACTUAL geographical term, it is taight in GCSE level Geography across the UK, simply deleting it because it returns few hits on google, or because it has "nothing to do with doughnuts" would be silly. ( Neostinker 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)) reply
    • Editors are of the opinion that it should be deleted because you have failed to cite any sources, and they have failed to find any sources. Verifiability is fundamental to what we do, here. If you really learned this in school, then you are in a prime position to cite the books that you learned it from. Please cite sources, as you were asked to a month ago. Uncle G 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V/ WP:RS; even if this is a legitimate term, the article would need a major rewrite. -- Kinu t/ c 13:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but clean up and probably rename. There is another term for this (at least in the US) in Real Estate marketing that I just can't put my finger on at the moment but I've heard it several times. It's a notable concept that deserves an article, it just needs to be cleaned up a bit. Agne 14:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. If this is a real geographical term, please cite some verifiable sources for it. Otherwise it looks far too much like original research to me. Scorpiondollprincess 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The Google test isn't the end-all indicator, but it does show that this subject most likely isn't verifiable. The way the article is written seems to confirm that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this seems to be just a specific example of urban decay. This article doesn't seem to have sufficient information to salvage and merge. And considering how little the term appears to be used, a redirect doesn't seem to make much sense. -- Whpq 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep but start again from scratch. Real term, however the article presents it too much in an OR manner. The term (or variation thereof) is also used in education in reference to an issue facing inner city school populations (the gist being younger families tend to move towards the suburbs, leaving a population "hole" that makes it difficult for inner city schools to find students, often leading to their closure). 23skidoo 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless references given. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep if references can be found -- and that should be a trivial case of anyone who is currently in secondary education in the UK opening up their geography textbook at the index and making a note of the relevant page numbers. Seriously, this is taught in every school in one of the major English-speaking countries. The article could be written more clearly, but deleting it just because it's not a term used on the internet would be stupid. See the similar case of the abortive Minibeast AfD -- another common term from British education that was nominated in a rather insensitive way by someone who assumed that any term they hadn't heard of must be nonsense. — Haeleth Talk 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That was not how this article was nominated, however. Uncle G 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If this is just a form of urban decay, wouldn't a redirect and maybe a paragraph on that article suffice? -- Missmarple 13:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I was at secondary school in Australia (hopefully still a "major English-speaking country") not too long ago and never learned this term in my geography classes. "Urban decay" and some of the other terms suggested here, most certainly, but not this one. BigHaz 03:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Sources have been added to this article now, proving that this is not original research and is infact taught at GCSE level. ( Neostinker 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)) reply
    • Please use {{ cite book}} and give the exact details (title, author, publisher, year, ISBN, and so forth) of the books. Uncle G 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per GWO ("incoherent claptrap"). -- NORTH talk 22:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

ElThrowball

Non notable beach game made up in June this year. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day (nor in this case out of school). -- RHaworth 11:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 07:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Buck de hock

Hoax ball game. Zero Google hits. Disputed prod and prod2. -- RHaworth 11:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - may not be hoax but fails WP:V, WP:OR and smacks of WP:NFT. Yomangani 12:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hoax. -- GWO
  • Delete It admits to being little known - so nn and/or unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 12:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: unverifiable, nn. -- The Anome 15:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as an unverifiable hoax. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete please it looks like a hoax to me too Yuckfoo 16:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Quiditch is more a real game than this. Delete as bupkes. — NM Chico 24 09:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 07:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

RealityReel.com

Delete. I had already prod'ed this with the reason Not a notable website per WP:WEB. No claim of notability, either. Alexa rank of 340,000. ... discospinster talk 11:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 07:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Inomanet

A private company which according to the article has not even been founded yet, has no Google hits, has no claim to notability, and has a rather disfunctional website, does not meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability/notability. This is an advertisement. Delete. Jim182 12:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Fatty

Not notable -- SJK 12:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per apparent WP:HOAX. Also, move the disambig page back to plain Fatty WilyD 13:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Scorpiondollprincess 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Possibly a hoax - Theres an IMDB listing, but that's easily to put spoof entries into than Wikipedia these days. Artw 14:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. One of the IMDB entries is playing the family dog in Moonlight Mile. The other is a cleaning lady. I highly doubt these two characters were portrayed by the same performer. Fan-1967 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom Jesussaves 22:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Scancoaches

Contested prod which does not seem to meet WP:CORP. Note that the page shares the same name as sole contributor, User:Scancoaches. MER-C 12:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Indian tap

WP:NOT - neologism and original research. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Google comes up with just over 300 hits, none of which (besides this article) use this meaning. Kafziel 12:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

XTV

The article may potentially be a hoax, but at the very least is not verifiable. Googling results in many hits for a porn network, but a variety of variations on XTV with other words failed to find any hint of this netwrk's existence. Whpq 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:V. I'm not sure I see WP:HOAX, but if so then I'd consider Strong Delete. Fails to cite verifiable sources at the very least. Scorpiondollprincess 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Apparent hoax, certainly unverifiable. Parent company doesn't seem to exist. The list of shows looks like every kids show or cartoon from the last ten years. A few are implausible: can you imagine a children's network running Tripping the Rift? I don't think so. Fan-1967 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Massmatto 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

David Arcadian

Artist of questionable notability and verifiability; just 9 unique Google hits for his name, some of which appear to be irrelevant (other people with the same name). Clearly a vanity page from the user name of the creator, and stuffed with POV puff ("his extraordinary talent" etc). Creator removed all tags (including the wikify and references tags). ~ Matticus  T C 13:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Rockstar Memoirs

WP:CORP. Looks like SPAM. Google links point mostly to ads. No doubt it's real, but I don't think it rates an article. Rklawton 13:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Shredd and Ragan

This article had previously been speedied as a non-notable group. This is just a reposting of the same article. Rklawton 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Delete completely non-notable, and it reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted article. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment As I understand it, recreating a speedied article simply means it's "challenged" and subject to XfD if still appropriate - as it is in this case. Rklawton 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The show is notable, but the article is written as an add... -- T-rex 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The Shredd and Ragan show should have its own article on Wikipedia, as they have been on Buffalo's airwaves for many years. However, the content of the article should be modified, perhaps to include the history of the show and what they have done in the past in addition to what their current features are. -- Streetsabre 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Jaranda wat's sup 06:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Austin High School

Article gives no evidence of notability Icewolf34 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I fall heavily on the side of inclusionism, and don't see how keeping this article around until it can be expanded hurts Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not paper; obscure content isn't harmful; all schools are notable, et cetera; all the usual arguments — I won't waste your time with that. This is my alma mater, and though I haven't edited the article, I would hate to see it deleted. But I'm very busy and don't have a lot of time to expand it at present, and as it's been almost a decade since I graduated, I feel I lack the perspective to give it a fresh and current treatment.
As to its notability, AHS does produce a lot of National Merit Scholars (I was one) and does excel in test scores. It offers many advanced classes and programs (it was recently accredited with an International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme). Its sports teams have at times won statewide acclaim. But about the most notable thing about it from my perspective is its excellent band program, which involves an astounding portion of the student body (about a quarter of it in my day), many of whom are also the academic leaders of the school (most of the National Honor Society is in band). The concert bands have the longest string of consecutive superior ratings at state contest in Alabama (at forty years), and the marching band routinely excels in competitions in the highly competitive arenas of Tennessee and Georgia. The bands have performed for governors and presidents. If anyone else thinks this is notable, I would be glad to write it up and add it to the article.
I don't think this article is a lost cause. Austin High School is at least as notable as any other high school that's been allowed an article on Wikipedia (though I realize this is a contentious issue). It's one of only two major public high schools in operation in Decatur, Alabama, and has involved thousands of Decatur residents in its over forty years of operation. I think there's a good bit to say about this school, and its article could be helped a great deal by some love and care by a more recent graduate. If no such person comes along, I will do some research as soon as I'm able and expand it myself. — LonelyPilgrim 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - a high school just "being" does not make it notable. Alumni, major events, long history (>=50 years), etc would help. -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How is nominating a high school a disruption of Wikipedia? There is no consesus on whether high schools are notable or not, so an AFD nom is not unreasonable. I would suggest you please assume good faith in the future. Wickethewok 19:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Not to mention that the article at time of nomination was less than half its current size, all of four lines long. Icewolf34 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It is disruptive in my opinion as well. No verifiable high school article has been deleted for almost two years now. Two years. Get over it and and find a new method of "helping" this encyclopedia. Silensor 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd like to remind Golfcam to assume good faith, and I'd especially like to remind Silensor to avoid personal attacks. If Icewolf34 feels the school is non-notable, it is completely within his right to nominate it for deletion (just as it is right for you to argue against deletion). Icewolf is absolutely trying to help Wikipedia, and your condescension is much, much more of a hindrance to WP than his AfD nomination. (Note that I'm voting keep on this article, so my above statements are in defense of the nominator and of WP's core policies, not in defense of an opinion.) -- Kicking222 22:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Please quote precisely where Silensor made a "personal attack", I do not see such an attack on anyone, and I would suggest you take your own suggestion and assume good faith when reading Silensor's response. I think it is rather hard to suggest that saying "Get over it" is somehow a "personal attack". If so, I submit that you claiming that Silensor was engaged in "condescension" is in itself a personal attack. Your argument that the nominator is "within his right to nominate" is specious. As I have noted in months long since gone by, notability or the lack thereof is not, and never has been a valid criterion for the deletion of a high school article. Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD clearly states: Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion. WP:DP nowhere states or indicates that "non-notability" or "importance" is a "valid grounds for deletion" of a high school (or similar) article. If one reads the policy in the light of the fact that not a single, verifiable high school article has been deleted via the AfD/VfD processes in the course of the past 2 years worth of "discussions", I would humbly submit that nominating high school articles for deletion on the grounds that they are "non-notable" comes very, very, very close to a violation of standing policy - if not indeed constituting a violation of said policy. Might I suggest that if you are going to speak out "in defense of core policies" that a more precise reading of them be made before wildly suggesting that any and all nominations are somehow "rightful".-- Nicodemus75 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per silensor.   ALKIVAR ™ 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KeepI really do not understand why this article should be deleted. Austin High School and Decatur High School, are considered to of the best High Schools in the state of Alabama. To say that Austin is not notable is crazy.
    Austin's band program is outstanding. Not as outstanding as Decatur High School's, but second in the state, only behind Decatur High. I attend Decatur High School, and I believe that it should be kept. Our current band director, who has never gotten anything less than a superior rating at State attended Austin High. As LonelyPilgrim has said, Austin competes well with bands from Tennessee and Georgia. I am in Decatur's marching band and I have seen Austin in action. The Tennessee school practice marching band year round, and Austin beat one of them out in the Grissom Band Competition in 2005.
    Also, one of the best sax players in the state just graduated from Austin. Both Decatur City High Schools ARE considered notable by any standards, and should both be considered great. AlaGuy 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Look, although I don't feel that being an IB school or having a good band program really merits inclusion in Wikipedia, that information certainly pushes the article in that direction. Why don't you add these things to the page, with citations, instead of just bringing them up in the AfD? The nomination was due to "no evidence of notability," not an argument that high school absolutely isn't notable. And yes, the IB information was added after the initial nomination. And no, that doesn't change my mind, although it's a step in the right direction. Icewolf34 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • While I strongly disagree with your assertion that this article does not demonstrate notability, know that notability is not a requirement for inclusion. Wikipedia:Notability is not an accepted policy, not even a guideline, it is an essay. We do not delete articles about high schools for the same reason we do not delete articles about a small town, population 8. Since AFD is not intended to be an avenue for cleanup, please consider adding schools which you do not find interesting or "notable" to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools page rather than clogging up this place with another dead end nomination. Silensor 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sounds notable to me. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Whoopy doo just another school. So school bands are notable now? Catchpole 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Offering the International Baccalaureate program is notable. Yamaguchi先生 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't believe that all schools are inherently notable, but the vast majority of high schools are. In particular, this school's article currently asserts, in my opinion, more than sufficient notability. -- Kicking222 22:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clear precedent and consensus has been established over the past 2 years to keep high schools/secondary schools on wikipedia.-- Nicodemus75 02:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per precedent visible at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive. -- Rob 06:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — Nice article, although a little history would help. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 17:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Delete - NN. No personal attacks, ever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. I'm not sure that this article is a 'personal attack'. Since this is a "discussion" about reaching consensus on whether or not to delete this article, I can only assume your otherwise non-sequitor statement about "No personal attacks, ever" must in some obscure fashion refer to the article itself. I suppose it is always good to be reminded of policy, but I think that this is hardly the place to do so.-- Nicodemus75 00:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Good start to this high school article. -- JJay 16:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom. Capit 17:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As above, it is disruptive to Wikipedia and trouble-starting to ever think about deleting a high school. Capit 17:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Several notable claims are documented within the article, I see no need to erase this. RFerreira 21:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Vegas7Casino.com

Non-notable online casino that does not meet WP:WEB. Seems to be mere advertising. Delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 19:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

CCC Shelter

While this may well be verifiable, it's a small building, a shelter in a park. Its notability is entirely based on the fact that it's one of the 79,000 entries in the US National register of historic places. If we have an article on every building worldwide which is as "historic" as this one, we'll have a million such articles. Note that I'm nominating this to some extent to see if this entire category of articles is worth keeping, we have many other articles on "historic" cabins and such Xyzzyplugh 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - presumably there's a good reason for this being listed as an historic site. Having a milion articles shouldn't be an issue so long as each such site has some historical signifigance. -- Whpq 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, if it is on the National Register of Historic Places then notability should be implicit. -- TheFarix ( Talk) 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It's notable enough, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so space concerns aren't nearly as big an issue. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Combination Shelter which is how it's listed on the National Register Dlyons493 Talk 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Regarding Combination Shelter, I did create a redirect from that to CCC Shelter. However, this structure is definitely not known locally as the Combination Shelter, nor is that how it is listed on Pokagon State Park materials (let me try to find an online version). Note also that the National Register gives an 'aka' as "CCC Shelter". MrHarman 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable criteria works for me per TheFarix above. If only there was one for schools :) -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Abstain, as creator of the article and photo. I myself have wondered about the idea of creating 79,000 National Register of Historic Places articles. It seems a trifle much to my mind (let's see, at 2 per day it would take 100 years), but there have been discussions over at Talk:National Register of Historic Places which can be summarized: "The fact that they are listed as a historical place says they are notable." MrHarman 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Space is not an issue for Wikipedia and since i beleive it is notable (but perhaps warrenting expansion) it is my recommendation to keep it.- (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 20:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Press kit

A dictdef that was transwikied more than a year ago. Anonymously deprodded. Kimchi.sg 14:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete if it's already transwiki'd. WilyD 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Press kits are an important part of film advertising. The majority of movie pictures that we see in newspapers or magazines come from these. It could be useful to explain the different parts of a common press kit (Anatomy of a Press Kit if you will) and give examples. Also, although I can't remember any off the top of my head, some movies have had particularly clever press kits which might deserve mention. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this has potential for expansion beyond dictdefs. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 12:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree this has potential. Press kits are important not in just film, but also literature, music, and other arts. -- Aguerriero ( talk) 21:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't think this is a dictionary term. Also one of the fair use copyright standards on Wikipedia is {{Promotional}} which reads: "...released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as ... in a press kit" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cott12 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep definatly as per Aguerriero - (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 1 Corinthians 13. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

1 Corinthians 13:1

This article is not about a notable verse in the Bible. If this article was not original research, it may qualify to be moved into an article about speaking in tounges. As is, this is not a notable subject and is nominated for deletion. PsYoP78 15:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and redirect to 1 Corinthians 13. The article is trash - but there really is no need to have another contravertial debate about the notability of Bible verses (an utterly subjective criterion). Perhaps someone can write a verifiable NPOV article on this single verse later, or perhaps not (there is certainly plently of accademic material on it). Anyway, redirects are cheap. -- Aoratos 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 1 Corinthians 13 as a probable search term. Anything that is not in the 1 Corinthians 13 article and is not original research can be merged. Unfortunately, it's not notable and appears to be original research, so it cannot stand alone. Srose (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above. The other is clearly getting kept anyway.-- Chaser T 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect title of article indicates it is just about verse 1. Move any valid into into the main article -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment thought given the state of the main article and the current AfD discussion itself is having, I am not sure what, if anything will be salvaged. Which may not be a bad thing. -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 CAUTION: Dead End, Right Lane Ends, etc. Seriously, deleted. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Unusual road signs

This survived, amazingly enough, a request for deletion in February 2006. The same problems that existed then exist now, and it looks unlikely they will be rectified. Originally, this was forked from the more-respectable Place names considered unusual article because road signs weren't considered places. Now, it stands as a beacon for unencyclopedic original research. Its lone "unusual road sign" - which relies on the 69 sex position and the euphemism relating beavers to vaginas - sets the stage for an intolerably immature article about road signs that make people giggle. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 21:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Downtown (Basketball)

This is probably a neologism. -- Sbluen 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I think this is a protoneo. I've heard this one on games. SynergeticMaggot 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I've heard the term mentioned a number of times in commentary during basketball games on Tv. Wildthing61476 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, should be (and sort of is) mentioned in Three-point field goal, and nothing here worth merging. Possibly add a link to that page at Downtown (disambiguation). I don't think a redirect is needed since I doubt anyone will search for it with this term and the parentheses and all. -- Kinu t/ c 16:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Kinu unless someone thinks this has potential for expansion beyond a dicdef. — Caesura (t) 19:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "Downtown" is an absolutely viable term, but the article could never possibly be more than a dicdef. -- Kicking222 22:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Is it possible to use a soft redirect to Wiktionary? Yank sox 23:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 21:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Auto-erotic performer

This article is both short and completely unreferenced, and the second part of the article reads like someone's wish-fulfilment sexual fantasy. I've done a quick search for supporting cites, and come up blank. Unless someone can come up with evidence to support either or both parts of this article, I suggest that the unverifiable material be deleted; and if there's nothing left, which seems probable, that the whole article be deleted. -- The Anome 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete; fails WP:V. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I suspect this is real, but without references...-- Chaser T 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

*Weak Keep with cleanup: I'm well out of my element in this discussion, but CFNM seems to be a documented article -- although the quality of that verification might need checked in turn. Because of the nature of the industry and the BDSM community (with which these topics have some, but not complete, overlap), it is going to be difficult to find wholly mainstream documentation. Regardless, if the other article's quality is able to stand, this one needs extensive cleanup; if it cannot grow beyond what it links to, Merge it instead. Serpent's Choice 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (retagged after signin to avoid appearance of sockism) reply

  • Reconsidered after my own efforts to research and improve this article. All Google hits are WP and mirrors. Nothing I can find referred to Stryker or The Gerogerigegege uses any term remotely like this one. There is a real CFNM sex underculture community (CMNF, also), but none of the references that I could find in that culture make use of this wording. In short, the phenomenon is real, but the term is not. This topic is adequately covered by CFNM, CMNF, Exhibitionism, and their related links. Delete per WP:NEO as a protologism. Serpent's Choice 12:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 'just closed. The article has been renamed Role of music in World War II, and bears little or no resemblance to what was originally AFD's. That was probably a good idea. Proto:: type 10:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of songs about World War II

Listcruft with no discernible encyclopedic value. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

        • What is "Listcruft?" No article in Wikipedia, no definition in the associated dictionary. Might as well say "fnorkthart" as the reason for deletion. Edison 03:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — Music performed during major wars has some cultural and sentimental value, particularly to those who lived through the period. I think this particular list is interesting and encyclopedic. — RJH ( talk) 16:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Question - What particularly do you find interesting and encyclopedic about it? -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Question -Do you really need such a Vanity page on your profile? If Wikipedia has room for you blogs, hobbies, interests and some of your photos it has room for a list of the music men and women listened to in the largest war in human history, or maybe not. -- Rhooker1236 16:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I fail to see what my user page has to do with this. And in any case, it's not about whether or not Wikipedia has room for a list like this, but rather whether or not it belongs in the first place. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 20:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Question -What particularly do you find about this place that makes it the wrong space to question the relative uses and abuses of Wikipedia? What makes this place the wrong place, and what makes your Vanity page Encyclopedic. If Wikipedia is going to delete this wonderful article because you demand a definition of encyclopedic well I have never seen an encyclopedia with administrators give each other metals, have links to their blogs, or post pictures of some houses they like. What makes you fit to judge the encyclopedic nature of a article when you abuse these values yourself. The article is excellent and should stay. To delete it would be an insult to the people who lived through that time. Especially since my wife just point out the idiotic Pamela Anderson article. This thing is becoming a joke. Also do you put your Wikipedia medals on when you go shopping?-- Rhooker1236 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I suppose it's partly because I grew up with people who had strong memories of the war, and the music of that time. Just as I have powerful memories associated with the music during the Vietnam War. So it's interesting to read about the music of the period and reflect on that time in history. Mayhap it's just a silly sentimentality. :-) — RJH ( talk) 18:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Preserving the cultural experience of the most dramatic event of modern history is not sentimentality, it is humanity. Your sane, the one's who want to delete this have simply gone nuts with the role playing game Wikipedia has become. Anyone who knows anything about WWII understands the critical role music played and would appreciate this article. In fact this is the only article in Wikipedia that my father in law, a vet from the South Pacific, found interesting. But I guess we need to make room for more shots of Pamela Anderson, fan comments on Star Trek:Enterprise, more comments on Klingon Language, to date one small child might speak natively in 10 years, and the Star Wars movies. I guess Andrew Orlowski was right after all.-- Rhooker1236 10:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Another Question "Another Brick in the Wall"? How were these determined? Fan-1967 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Another Question You seem able to write a lot of reason to delete, why not edit that one out of the article, even though there are songs about WWII in the Wall and Final Cut, but I have added better ones.-- Rhooker1236 14:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep I would imagine that over the years such a page could contain a full list of the popular music of WWII, and would be an invaluage living reference for historians and artists looking at that period. It is Wikipedic because it strives to expand the overall knowledge construction, because Wikipedia is one of the few places where such knowledge can be held, and that over time it will grow to become a hub connectiong to information, say details and lyrics of the songs, references to the songs role in history (i.e. Favority with Americans in South Pacific). Excellent article and the very fact its up for deletion, and that someone has been asked to define encyclopedic to try and save it is rather sad. -- Rhooker1236 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete, as it would probably be better off as a category, and as with all "List of [x] about [x] articles" the difficultiy in drawing boundries severly undermines it's usefullness. A list of significant songs about WWII, or songs from WWII might be usefull but would have similar problems. Artw 16:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Songs about WWII are almost a genre unto themselves. I see no problem with it, however I agree with Fan-1967 that some of the entries are questionable and should be vetted. 23skidoo 17:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Many of the songs are from that era, and took on meaning relevant to the war, but are not specifically about the war, and don't even mention it in any way. Some were written much earlier. Fan-1967 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - cat would be better, seeing as there is no additional information provided in the article which would substantiate a list -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) moving comment down below, now that article has been revised. — MrDolomite | Talk 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is what categories are for. How much of the song has to refer to WWII to be on this list? There is no article on songs about World War II (nor is there a need for one), so this list is not necessary. It is not encyclopedic and is listcruft. No need to open the door to lists of songs about WWI, the Vietnam War, the cola wars, or whatever. Agent 86 20:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The lack of criteria has already led to confusion about what can and can't go on the list (are we talking about "songs about the war" or "songs which were popular during the war"? Both appear to be listed and one of the rationales to keep above is also conflating the two together. Further, I'm not entirely convinced that everything on the list qualifies under either criterion). BigHaz 23:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Clear Case of Category. -- GWO
  • Keep m:mergist analysis seems to apply here. The problem with using a category is that it requires a separate article for each song. That is more WP:CRUFT-y than a single-article list, almost by definition. The list can mention songs that are verifiable but don't rise to the level of needing their own articles. Using a category would result in a bunch of song articles being made all the time that are basically content-free. Phr ( talk) 09:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete I don't completely object to the topic of this list, but this particular list is not worth keeping around. What are the criteria? For example, how is "I'll Get By (As Long As I Have You)" about World War II? As the entries on the list belie the idea that there's a clear topic, this is rendered useless. GassyGuy 10:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Is it that admins are voting on this without knowing anything about WWII culture, or not caring, or they just love to delete?
There seems to be a clear failure on the part of many of the admins on this group to understand cultural studies and history, but sadly it does not stop the march to delete, which is now the admins favorite past time. Just an effort to make clear. WWII was a radio war, the first and only radio war. For most people the only connection they had to the mass media of that day was through radio, and radio generally plays a lot of music. Song were about the war itself, or about the strong emotional feelings that the war took place, or just pretty songs that people in the war felt. Some songs were big band songs without words, but were popular with the troops. But espeically for the American forces songs defined a time, a cause, a connection to home, a wall against fear, and a positive outlook which got the nation through. If you want to know whay the US won WWII and lost Vietnam and the Second Iraq War probably the place to look are the songs, WWII songs speak of motivation, hope, aspiration, unity; a sense of political purpose lacking in recent wars and significant. This type of page is one of the most significant types of entries that Wikipedia could have that a book can not, as more and more songs and composers, in theory, are added and not deleted (highly unlikely) this list of significant songs that define a period would grow. If there is a need to more clearly defined that types of music that goes in this list than that is NOT best done with a delete. In fact this list is probably a defining moment for Wikipedia. It is the kind of network information that a Wiki is best at capturing, in fact the only reason to have a wiki is to be able to produce these kinds of centre points. If Wikipedia can't keep a critical contribution to knowledge construction like this, while still having a massive Pamela Anderson article, a huge page on Jorn Barger who runs a blogs and is an anti-semite, and masses on the Klingon language, than it is clearly and "objectively" dead as a form of human knowledge collection. This article holds the entire soul of Wikipedia. Wikipedia could have been the only place to collect this historically critical information, and it looks to be deleted. Its sad to because a number of us would clearly like to make the case for why this is critical on the page, but one the Wiki admins get the smell of a delete they won't stop. I'm sure this article will be deleted and it will be a truely pathetic day for Wikipedia. Of course Jimbo "Ayn Rand contains all truth" Jones many enemies will be delighted, as will Britanica and Google and Microsoft, knowing they have little to fear from an "encyclopedia" which can't even understand how important mustic was to WWII. -- Rhooker1236 10:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The above poster's arguments (once cleansed of their vitriol) notwithstanding, this article is ill-suited to document the role of music in WWII. Want an article about that? Make Role of music in WWII or something similar. That would be verifiable and encyclopediac. This is inviting a list that is open ended, unverifiable, an inherently tainted by POV arguments over what is "about enough" to be included. (As of 7/31, this has been done in all but name) Serpent's Choice 11:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • WRONG An article called "The Role of Music in WWII" would be open to NOPV since there exists no semiotic or cultural study theory at this time as to what the role of music is? What is the role of Rock Music, of Jazz, of Kabuki? Such an article would be by its nature rather opionated and more on the level of theory rather then encyclopedic. An article outline the most popular songs from the war and about the war CAN be verified, the role of music in the war can not. I don't mean to be vitriol but that does not make sense at all. A list of songs is easier to approve as being from a time or of a content than a discourse on the function of that music. Its sometimes like you admins aren't think in your hungry to delete articles. -- Rhooker1236 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - But the article, as you have recently edited it, has in fact become an original research topic on the role of music in WWII. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 14:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm moved by Rhooker1236's remarks (I already voted keep though). I think Serpent's Choice suggestion of an article about the role of music in WW2 is also a good idea, but I'm still fine with the list for reasons stated earlier. Issues of verifiability can be handled the usual way--anyone wanting to challenge an entry can ask for a cite (but don't do that maliciously, WP:AGF and challenge in cases where there's actual doubt). Replacing the list with a category does absolutely nothing to get rid of such doubts--instead of "why is this song on the list" it becomes "why is this song in the category". Phr ( talk) 11:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • My problem regarding this topic really is in its titling. Rhooker1236 wants this entry to bring together "songs that define a period". And I will not argue; WWII is perhaps unique among major wars in that music, at home and abroad, played an important role in morale and even propoganda. The use of music in the period is verifiable. It is notable. It is encyclopediac. But that's not what this list is titled as, and so that's not what it would contain. Rhooker1236 writes how "[s]ong[s] were about the war itself, or about the strong emotional feelings that the war took place, or just pretty songs that people in the war felt." But a pretty song that was a morale motivator for soldiers or their families homeside is not, strictly speaking, a "song about World War II". Such songs should be pulled from this list. Any song written before WWII could not be about the war, and should be pulled from this list. And what about songs written 10, 20, 30 years after the war? How can we decide whether those songs are "about" the war? For many bands and many songs, meaning is left to the audience. For us as editors to determine which songs are meant to invoke the memory of WWII to an extent worthy of making this list is fundamentally incompatible with WP:NPOV (Another Brick in the Wall??). For what its worth, Rhooker, I'm on your side. What you are talking about is something that Wikipedia needs (and that, so far as I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't currently have). But this list is not going to produce the end you're looking for. Let this one go, and make a more appropriate home for the knowledge. It deserves better. Serpent's Choice 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Firstly it is not up to you to decide what should be in the songs, let some people who lived through the period ad.
The article may have a poor name, but it redirects from "songs from WWII" so it is Songs about and Songs from WWII.
I have just spent 3 hours of my employers time to fill it out to a proper stub, but I have not touched the surface. My research indicates that the differences between the music of different regims, and the way WWII has been expressed after the is fascinating.
I hope to spent a few more weeks researching and expanding this article and giving it better links, please don't delete it, I am desperate here. I feel that Wikipedia's very soul is on the line here. This is the kind of article only something like Wikipedia can make, it does not hurt ANYONE that it is here and I KNOW that in time it can be a great article. If you delete it I really have to wonder about Jimbo's entire play thing.
And though my handle is rhooker123, to prevent spamming, my name is Robert Hooker, I live in London and am 39 years old and a buff about popular culture and World War II. I take ownership for the value of the knowledge constructed here and ask that a summary deletion not be carried out and that those of us who love the idea of this article be given a chance to make something great out of it.-- Rhooker1236 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Article is now radically different (expanded) compared to the first few days of this AfD. Participants who proposed deletion early in the discussion should check the new version. Partipants who proposed deletion early based on the old version and then didn't participate further should be downweighted for consensus purposes since they weren't referring to the same article. However, as someone said above, the new version should maybe have a different title. I don't see it as OR beyond other culture-related articles; it could use better sourcing, but it's still a work in progress. I think it's a promising article now. Phr ( talk) 14:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • References and sources I have taken references for the work, but I have a full time job and I am in the process of changing jobs right now, so I can only do work in patches. If I am going to fill this out it will take a couple of weeks, if it is just going to be deleted I would like to know now so I don't waste any more time on it. The vote seems to be against it, but how decisions are made is never clear. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhooker1236 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Delete after reviewing the updated content of the article (thanks for the note Phr), this is still a good use of a category. The non-list content of this article should be moved to a new article Role of music in WWII per Serpent's Choice above. — MrDolomite | Talk 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article is no longer a list at all, and at this point the article should simply be moved to a new title, since it's an entirely different article now. Issues of whether the article should then contain a list of songs are editorial questions belonging on the article's discussion page, not an afd (unless someone opens a separate afd for the new article). Unless someone objects (or does it first) I'm going to rename it to "Role of music in World War II". Also, kudos to Rhooker1236 for his work on this promising new article. Phr ( talk) 20:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a great article for those of us whose parents fought in the war, or whose parents lost someone in the war. It can be improved. There were lots of articles about the music of the war. Broadcasts and records were so crucial to the war effort that vinyl Vdiscs of songs were created and shipped to the troops even while the musicians union was on strike and commercial recordings were not being made. Lots of emotion invested in some couple's special song. Edison 01:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (but retitle). I have rescinded my previous deletion endorsement in light of the current state of the article. It will need to be renamed; it no longer remotely meets the description of a list as Wikipedia knows them. Although edits to entries in AfD are permissible (and have likely saved this content), I am reticent to be bold enough to pagemove this during AfD, given its evolution during the process. Also the page will require substantially better sourcing in the near-term regardless of destination titling, but because the content can be verified, that is a matter for the page's talk and no longer for AfD. Serpent's Choice 02:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Article is renamed Per earlier comment, since no one objected I've moved the article to Role of music in World War II. I left the AfD template in it but I think this AfD should be closed and the template removed. The article that was AfD'd and the present article have no resemblance to each other. Anyone still favoring deletion should open a new AfD. Discussion about the article content should go on the article talk page, not here. It's massively stressful to an article writer to have to make edits while an AfD is winding down. Phr ( talk) 04:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Biosingularity

Neologism. Google brings back lots of hits, but this mainly seems to be because it is the name of a blog. Of the non-blog hits many seem to have divergant meanings for the term. Artw 15:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep a stub on a significant issue that will be of growing interest to the Wiki community. Strange lame reason given for delete, are some of you even trying anymore?-- Rhooker1236 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The reason is far from lame. It is, in essence, that this is original research, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. That is one of the primary reasons for deleting articles, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If this is a "significant issue", then you should be able to cite sources on the subject of biosingularities. Please cite sources. Uncle G 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Transwik to Wiktionary. There doesn't appear to be much more to say about it here without going into "crystal ball" territory. Kafziel 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • This word is not used in running text anywhere, as far as I can see, and fails to satisfy Wiktionary's attestation criteria with a resounding thud. Uncle G 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Fair enough. Changed my vote. Kafziel 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The blog's author indicates that he/she coined the term. This is a neologism whose article facilitates linkspamming the blog. Unless the word can be shown to be in more widespread use, it should be deleted per WP:NEO.-- Chaser T 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The article cites no sources, and I can find no sources describing the purported concept of a "biosingularity". This is original research. Delete. Uncle G 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NEO - whoa WilyD 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as neologism (and multiply defined, with different meanings, at that.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Wannabegeek

Deprod by author. Less than 1000 google hits, many of which are irrelevant (it's a website and also someone's username on various sites). Hard to see how it could be longer than a dicdef. -- ais523 16:10, 21 July 2006 ( U T C)

  • Delete as original research. Molerat 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as dicdef. WilyD 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn neologism and as per above - Harmil 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per above -- Alias Flood 00:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Jaranda wat's sup 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Maris Stella High School

This page has it source from text taken from the school website

I have recieved a complaint at OTRS about this from a teacher from that school about this article. Ticket#: 2006072010009215 Deletion is requested becuase of copyright reasons. -- Walter 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep but removal of copyrighted text. Molerat 16:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- Kimchi.sg 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep after reducing to a stub. Golfcam 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep after reducing to a stub per [14]. Themindset 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Replace content with a {{ copyvio}} template, as per the usual procedure. :-) — RJH ( talk) 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Looks like it has been cleaned up nicely. I don't have any issue with certain institutions, such as Secondary Schools, getting a default status of notable, given that they meet some basic criteria. (Geographic locations appear to receive similar treatment.) Since we don't have such an agreed criteria, I'll just keep using my own for now. In this case my preference is keep. Thank you. :-) — RJH ( talk) 18:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep clearly established precedent and consensus over the past 2 years not to delete high school articles on wikipedia.-- Nicodemus75 02:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - -- Klemen Kocjancic 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as I think it was just the history that was a copyvio, which has been removed. If there's still a copyvio, then please put the {{ copyvio}} tag in place.. -- Rob 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable. Just another school. -- GWO
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Just another obviously notable school. Silensor 07:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete, which pretty much means that my argument is pointless. WP:SCHOOL is not a policy, and the words "high school" don't make a school notable. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep and please help reduce systemic bias this singapore high school is important Yuckfoo 16:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as above to help reduce the systemic bias against high schools in general on Wikipedia. Capit 17:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Secondary schools are notable, WP:SCHOOL not becoming policy is irrelevant to that point. Bahn Mi 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 23:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Changingworlds

Delete advertising for (one or more) non-notable comapnies; fails WP:CORP. No sources so unverifiable. Has serious point of view issues as written. Prod removed without explanation Gwernol 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138 Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Fairnie

Fails WP:BIO with either 799 or 78 google results. Fails WP:V with 2/3 of references based from lycos free pages. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong keep This seems like a classic misapplication of the google test, which is not very useful for people who did most of their work before pre-internet. Even if he fails BIO (I haven't really looked into it), the article asserts enough notability which is verifiable from reliable sources like this one that I think he has enough notability to keep. This page needs work, but it shouldn't be deleted. I'm willing to do some rewriting if the AfD closes keep.-- Chaser T 16:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep I support your arguments (and not only because I originally authored the piece!...). Steve Fairnie only played a bit-part in the history of music (and art), but his contribution had a huge effect on those whose path he crossed. U2 are the most notable example, but there are literally hundreds of others. His presence on the web has been slow to gain ground precisely because much of what he achieved was in the dark ages before Google, Wikipedia et al., but his legacy lives on, and I believe a Wikipedia entry would be appropriate. Thank you for your support, and I would gladly welcome rewriting in order to adhere more stringently to the Wikipedia thang!-- User:Tjpike
  • Rewrite and add cites Article is excessively devotional and not verifiable per WP:V. It needs to be rewritten with neutral phrasing and verifiable external cites. The article should also be shorter in my opinion, given Fairnie's obscurity. Also, try to follow Wikipedia style ( WP:MOS) about fonts, picture placement, etc, so the article visually looks like other Wikipedia articles (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gallery); the current layout may look good outside the encyclopedia context, but the way it stands out in Wikipedia is probably what attracted the deletion nomination.

    I just left you a welcome message with a bunch of links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines; please take a look at them. But I think your remark that Fairnie "only played a bit-part in the history of music (and art)" explains why this article is probably not encyclopedic. If you can document Fairnie's influence on U2, your best bet would be to mention that in the U2 article. You may have to go to the library to research suitable cites in printed sources--internet searches don't work so well for artists from this long ago. Anyway, don't get discouraged, do keep contributing, just try to get the hang of what kinds of articles fit into Wikipedia. Phr ( talk) 10:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Vote changed to conditional keep. The rewrite is more encyclopedic but documentation is still skimpy. I did a quick search of several news and periodical databases (through public library) and couldn't find anything, which is a bit worrisome. However, nothing obviously controversial is being claimed. Subject matter is suitable for encyclopedia if the claims check out. Phr ( talk) 02:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Keep based on most recent additional sourcing. Phr ( talk) 09:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for those words of advice, which have made me more conscious of what is required and what is the "norm" on Wikipedia. I'll do my best to make the necessary amendments! -- User:Tjpike

  • Is this getting any better?... I've taken your feedback on board on radically revised the page (which, incidentally, should be labelled 'Steve Fairnie', not 'Fairnie'... all part of the learning process). Let me know whether I'm any closer to the Wikipedia scheme of things in terms of presentation. As to whether he meets the notability grade, checking out the musician notability guidelines, I personally think he's in with a shout despite the aforementioned 'bit-part' aspect... perhaps 'essential cameo' would have been a better description! Yours, only too willing to learn! Tjpike 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, much better. Please add as much documentation as you can. The cites really do make the article stronger, which I think you would want regardless. You can rename the page with the "move page" tab (actually you may not have that tab yet, new editors don't get the tab for a few weeks to slow down vandalism, but you can ask someone else to move the page). Probably better to avoid confusion by not moving it til after the AfD closes. Phr ( talk) 02:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Further: I see now, some of the references given do document claims in the article. For example, the Willie Williams interview describes the U2 connection. But the references aren't connected closely enough to the article, so when the article says "Fairnie influenced U2" it makes me say "where's that documented?" since there's no immediate connection to the interview. The way to fix that is by adding footnotes, so next to the U2 mention, you'd immediately have a link pointing to a footnote that cites the interview. See Help:Footnotes for how to do this. Phr ( talk) 02:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • OK, I'll add footnotes - I understand the logic in that. Can it also be useful to add direct quotes? (e.g. from his obituary in The Independent (10/03/93) , or various Melody Maker / NME reviews) Also, should record label information be included, or the fact that 'Hype' was among the first releases on Virgin Games, or the Robert Lax publication references? I think so much pedantic information wouldn't be necessary for a major league artist, but perhaps it's necessary here in the interest of accuracy and credibility?... Please advise. Tjpike 06:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Yes of course you can use direct quotes, just keep them reasonably short, to not get in copyright trouble. As for the other stuff, it's pretty flexible, I'd say just find some comparable biographies and do what they do. Actually the more major artists have MORE detailed info, depending on how much work the article's editors were willing to do. For example, look at Phil Collins, which is a featured article (i.e. designated as one of the best articles on Wikipedia). See WP:FA#Music for a list of other music-related FA's. Again, spend some time exploring the links in the welcome message for various kinds of advice about how to research and write good articles. WP:TPA sums it up. Phr ( talk) 07:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for all the tips. I've been very pleasantly surprised at how active things are behind the scenes here and how helpful you've been! I've continued to edit the piece, and hope I'm getting if not "there", at least a little closer! I hope I haven't gone overboard on the references, and I'm not quite sure how to word them properly. I look forward to the next wave of feedback! All the best Tjpike 20:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Glad to help, and glad the article is shaping up. Further discussion should be on the article's talk page; an AfD is not the right place for this kind of conversation. Phr ( talk) 04:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: interesting subject with plenty of references. HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 08:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Bobet 12:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Wilson Lee Flores

The subject is a newspaper/magazine columnist and has a real estate business in the Philippines. His only notable achievement was receiving a Palanca Award in 1987, but very few Palanca Award recipients have entries here. There are 281 Google hits for his name, in English, but only 65 unique hits. - Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 09:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: if the Palanca Award is as prestigious and significant as the page makes it out to be, why shouldn't we have articles on the recipients? up+land 11:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep only to cleanup and WP:V such claims. If not, let me know and I'll change my vote. Zos 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Keep The awards mentioned are quite prestigious and beyond reproach in integrity. This unsigned comment was the second generated by 124.106.237.43 ( talk · contribs).
      • CommentThe writer has won three Palanca literary awards (not one as mentioned by the anonymous complainant) and he has also won 5 times in the Catholic Mass Media Awards in three years for his columns. The CMMA is the most prestigious mass media awards in the Philippines, testament to a writer's integrity and quality of writings. The Philippine Star is a major newspaper, and he writes a column here. It is strange that a person would complain about this entry, because this Wikipedia is only for reference purposes and the Wikipedia is not a "Who's Who" of celebrities, but a source of useful informations.
      • On the suggestion that other Palanca winners be cited in Wikipedia, why not? What is wrong with it?

The data about Wilson Lee Flores in this entry doesn't violate any copyright rules. If there are any copyright violations, please kindly specify.

It is strange that someone is spending time to erase this entry on Wilson Lee Flores for seemingly invalid reasons. I do not think a person should be mentioned in Wikipedia just because he or she has the most number of yahoo or google entries, this is not wholly rational. He is an interesting and a major newspaper columnist nd multi-awarded writer. I agree, the complaint seems quite out of place and unnecessary.

      • The data cited in the Wilson Lee Flores entry are all original, and does not violate any copyright informations anywhere. I further agree, if there are any alleged copyright violations, please present the specifics here.

In the rules of Wikipedia for inclusion of biographies, one of the criteria stated includes--- "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Wilson Lee Flores has authored five (5) books published by De La Salle University Press, which is part of one of the top universities in the Philippines. He had published thousands of newspaper columns, essays, articles in local and international publications which help shape public opinion.


In my casual research of Google, there are 714,000 hits on the name Wilson Lee Flores. But since I don't have time to go over the entire contents, I didn't have time to verify how many are "unique" hits. However, there was never any mention in the criteria for Wikipedia biographies that an entry should have the most number of google hits of whether a million or ten million. I also read that Wilson Lee Flores is President of Anvil Business Club, a major business organization in the Philippines whose induction of officers in July 2005 was hosted by Philippine President Gloria Macaopagal Arroyo in the Malacañang presidential palace at a 3-hours formal dinner. Among the guests included foreign diplomats such as the Singapore Ambassador, cabinet officials, legislators, heads of foreign chambers of commerce such as the British and Taiwanese Chambers of Commerce and others. This event was on primetime television news and reported in major newspapers such as Philippine Daily Inquirer and Philippine Star. He is not only a multi-awarded writer, but a leader of a major business organization. The above comments were all generated from the same IP address.

Commment . Try [ this] google search for < 300 hits. The quotation marks make all the difference -- Peripitus (Talk) 22:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Retain. It is very obvious to everyone that this writer more than merits citation in here due to his numerous awards and other notable activities, but I suggest that the whole piece can be edited for further improvement. This unsigned comment was the first generated by 124.106.237.43 ( talk · contribs).
  • Keep agree to Wine Guy on his two points---that the author clearly meets the requirements and that the write-up needs clean up. This unsigned comment was generated by Musicloverasia ( talk · contribs).
Comment - this is exactly why I listed the entry here for community-wide input on a keep/delete decision. I did not, however, anticipate this apparent sockpuppetry. Votes are coming into this AFD from anon IP editors whose only contributions are here and at the Flores entry. One anon editor entered his first comment down at the bottom, then went back up near the top to stick a second vote – four minutes later – in an attempt to vote twice. Musicloverasia has only one edit (at the time I wrote this), and it's the "keep" vote just above this comment. (New editors, all your edits are tracked and kept pursuant to the GFDL license.) There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Palanca Award - but I had never heard of it before reading this entry, and I still don't know much about it other than it's a Philippine award. Flores won his three all in the same year, 1987, and they were all for essays, not books. He won 1st and two other essays tied for 3rd place that year.
I listed this here because I just don't know if he meets the notability threshold or not. If the man is indeed notable enough to include in an encyclopedia, let's keep the entry, by all means. On the other hand, I have trouble keeping it if most of the votes here are from meatpuppets. I hope we get more unique votes. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 22:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I cannot find any of the puported books at the publisher's [ website]. All I can see is that he's journalist who's president of a business club. No books on either amazon or [ http://www.kabayancentral.com] to be seen Per the below link it seems that the books are 8-page pamphlets which is hardly inspiring. Without verifyability this is a vanity article making unsupportable claims of notability. IF you remove the unverified parts of the article it clearly fails WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 03:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ...This is blatantly a vanity page. Information seen here only seems to laud the said person. Google search shows 281 hits since the person is a columist of a newpaper wherein he is a contributor, these topics were simply written by him. Secondly those voting to retain or keep the said articles are from the same ip in which User|124.106.237.43 has several comments & votes to keep or retain. Others are anonymous and unsigned. I would surmise that the author of this topic ( or probably Wilson Lee Flores himself) is the one defending and giving positive comments on the topic since the comments seems to be very detailed. Whereas most unique votes has voted to have it deleted.I have read the said article and I feel it does not deserve to be retained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.69.18.27 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Violation of Wikipedia’s Autobiograpy policy of writing an article about oneself. Author of Flores topic use the guise of writing in the third person to present his biography. Neutral point of view has not been observed. As evidenced by grandstanding - seen by his self-inclusion in the List of Famous Chinese Filipinos or Chinese Mestizos history on March 21 2006 edit. Said topic has no impact or importance as an encyclopedic entry. Author may just use his user's page to enlighten Wikipedians on his accomplishments. Also violates WP:ENC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.140.213 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Keep The five books authored by Wilson Lee Flores are publicly on sale in Philippine bookstores, and those were published by De La Salle University Press. This fact can easily be verified by any person because De La Salle University Press is connected to one of the best universities in the Philippines. It is possible that the entry on Wilson Lee Flores was originally written by others, but the said subject had perhaps edited it himself in more details and probably over enthusiastically without fully knowing the rules of Wikipedia which correctly states that the point of view should be neutral. In objective assessment of this subject, he is an award-winning writer and author who merits mention in Wikipedia. A mention in Wikipedia is not to praise or to laud a person, that is why the point of view should be neutral and the entry should be edited in its point of view, but to delete it for wrong reasons is also wrong. That is just my honest and unbiased opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MusicLoverAsia ( talk • contribs) .

I do think that this is just a question of editing the point of view to make sure the point of view is neutral.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Music lover asia ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 20 July 2006.

  • Comment links provided by Musicloverasia shows the 5 books written by Flores has a total of 8 pages each, whether it includes the preface, table of contents or appendix, it's still a book, nontheless- or is it?-- Aquaman007 08:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    more of a pamphlet rather than a book at 8 pages - Peripitus (Talk) 09:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Delete A pamphlet it is.- UNESCO requires a publication (other than a periodical) to have 'at least 5 but not more than 48 pages exclusive of the cover pages' to count as a pamphlet; a longer item is a book. You would expect a multi-awarded writer and public speaker as claimed by the author to do better than write 8 page pamphlets. Notability highly in doubt.For a book, the pamphlet is not.-- 58.69.34.133 11:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Look, authors don't have to write books to be notable. This guy wan his Palanca Award for an essay. I think it counts. Mango juice talk 16:38, 21 July 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, Mango juice talk 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Is the Palanca award verifiable. What years? There's a wiki list by year but a cursory look didn't uncover him. Dlyons493 Talk 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It's here: 1987 Palanca Awards. -- Howard t he Du c k 02:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. So he did win three prizes, but in a single year and in the fairly minor category of Essays. Now if it had been a book I'd have no doubts, but an essay ??? Dlyons493 Talk
        • Im pretty much sure he didn't just do essays, I remember reading his short stories/poems (?) while in high school. -- Howard t he Du c k 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Note: He is also a columnist of the Philippine Star.
  • Delete Unable to verify claims on being a Director of the UMPIL, as a judge of various writing contest, as the editor of the 1986 book " The Turning Point", " Roots of the Philippine Business", on being a speaker in Soth Korea in 1988. 210.213.190.184 04:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • [15]] suggests the only editor was Brevern. But the book is apparently a collection so it's possible one of his essays is included - I can't verify that from here. Some of the articles claims are backed up by his old school [16] Dlyons493 Talk 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE WP:VAIN WP:VERIFY 58.69.18.238 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment this vote is from an editor who has just been vandalising the the AfD. Bandwith problems let to inadvertent blanking. Dlyons493 Talk 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep no reason for this nomination in my opinion. Daviegold 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable author, even if notability is minor. WP isn't a better place without this article. Aye-Aye 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is becoming utterly hilarious. We are not nominating this writer for a Nobel Prize for Literature. Isn't his having won five times in the most prestigious Philippine journalism awards---the Catholic Mass Media Awards---enough to merit this article? The way some naysayers are so vehemently nitpicking makes this seem like a deliberation for the Nobel Prize or Pulitzer Prize. First there was a claim the books are non-existent, then those are now being criticized...there was an earlier claim that he won one Palanca award, when there were three awards...but now this is questioned because they were all won in one year...this discussion is becoming too hilarious, don't you think? I suggest we be objective and less trivial, let this article be and move on to more important things.
  • Delete Pathetic excuse to let the article remain, as mentioned WP is informative, just put his name in the Palanca link (which is already the case) and thats it. Why does the article have to mention so many other events of this authors life which is hardly worth mentioning and quite ordinary to say the least. I would rather the author just reveal himself to the discussion group and not use anon ip and pseudonyms. I think this is an ego matter. So lets end this articles misery and as what the comment above says move on since if we leave this in other administrators who sees this article will nominate it for deletion again.
  • Comment Agree that editing be done to ensure a neutral editorial point of view, perhaps that's the main problem of the complainant. The writer's having won 5 times in the Catholic Mass Media Awards seems to be noteworthy, not just his Palanca Awards, since it is without doubt the most important journalism honor in the Philippines attesting to integrity and excellence. I suggest that this fact not be ignored. I had already checked the credibility of the Catholic Mass Media Awards, and the Philippine media had reported his wins in recent years, and those awards should not be belittled even by the complainant against this article being in Wikipedia. The writer or his friends might be wrong in over enthusiastic descriptions of the writer before---and I agree those should be properly edited---but it would be equally wrong to be biased and to personally attack the writer's credentials or his works. Let us also not be guilty of being biased or frivolous in our criticisms. Thanks for allowing me to share my opinions.
  • Delete. There is a no vanity policy here. It doesn't matter if you are a journalist/businessman or whatever. Don't write about yourself, or even someone close to you, period. Pls see the arguments of User:JChap2007 aside from the policies mentioned. Assuming that the intent is for vanity which seems to be the case, the vote is delete no matter how verified or NPOVd this article is. With all policies aside, a community encyclo can not be taken advantage of in this way and its wrong. But since I assume good faith, I edited it for improved keepability, but still deletable with the other policy violation arguments mentioned above. Hope the edits are enough to merit a keep it but I won't be surprised if this thing is gone. :) -- Noypi380 15:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, I can still change my vote, but an example must be made about vanity by deleting it. No worries, if notability is there, the article can be made again. :) -- Noypi380 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mo0[ talk] 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Summer Lynn

A non-notable porn star -- Porqin 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mo0[ talk] 04:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Shawn MacKenzie

I can't verify ANY of this information. Searching the University of Prince Edward Island, does NOT make any mention of the "first man enrolled in Veterinary Medicine" Also, searching for "Shining Waters", "Salty", and "Shawn MacKenzie" give no hits on Google. The article reads like a elaborate hoax. Wildthing61476 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:V. Even if claims were verified, I don't see enough to pass WP:BIO. -- Fan-1967 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per User:Fan-1967 -- Porqin 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm >< close to speedying it, since the statement about first man enrolled in VM is highly suspect since the page for that college [18] has a big banner saying "20 years...". Syrthiss 19:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Unless the Vet school opened 20 years ago for women only and he's the first man. Doesn't seem real likely, does it? Fan-1967 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If it helps this article WAS deleted for nn bio earlier, but did not include a lot of the same "facts". Wildthing61476 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Not really. If I speedied it it would be in anticipation of a delete, but I cannot apply A7 because the article *does* give some assertion as to why he is notable (tho lacking sources). Syrthiss 19:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete please it could be a hoax too Yuckfoo 17:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator, unverifiable with hoaxalicious flavor. RFerreira 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Proto:: type 10:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Klerck

"Not notable". No vote from me. Kotepho 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Previously nominated at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klerck

  • Keep. This AfD is because of a prior bogus speedy nomination from an apparent GNAA troll Werto ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). See for example Image:Freelimbaugh247.png (note the data in the form fields) and trolling at [19] and [20]. -- Phr ( talk) 18:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep definitely notable. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. Doesn't matter who nominated this article, it blatantly violates WP:BIO and WP:V. The sole claim to notability is "Some credit his page widening techniques as the primary reason Slashdot implemented the lameness filter, which checks pending comments for repetitive text or malicious formatting before allowing them to appear on a website". Even if you consider that noteworthy - which I don't, some blog changed some setting in response to some nerd making pages wide and annoying other nerds? Why didn't I see his obituary in The Times? - the claim is tagged with {{ fact}}, and it's obviously never going to get a citation from a reliable source. "Some credit"... "Some users found..." "May show..." - this is a complete joke. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The nominator removed stuff about the notorious Two Towers petition which got considerable press attention. I'll put it back. Phr ( talk) 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • (edit conflict (I saw the petition stuff)) Might as well cover the other supposed claims to notability: he got banned from somewhere, he founded a joke petition, and he committed suicide, all of which I could probably do myself within 3-12 hours, depending on how quickly I can procure a bottle of vodka and some sleeping pills. The petition is supposedly notable for its external coverage, but I read the Times article via Factiva. It's 8 lines long and doesn't mention Klerck at all. There is also an MSNBC article which is only mentioned in a blog article, with no actual proper citation to be found to give us any hint of how we can find the actual article (and if verification isn't repeatable, it's not verification at all), and it sounds bloggish anyway from the article actually linked. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment a minute with Proquest found several news stories from all over the world about the petition incident (they don't mention Klerck by name); I added a few more cites to the article. I don't think this is the most important article in the world but I'm a bit bothered by the notion that Wikipedia articles can get removed if MSNBC takes down a story that the Wikipedia article cites. WP:V expresses a preference for citing online media instead of print media and maybe that's not such a great idea. I like to think Wikipedia will be around long after organizations like MSNBC are gone. Phr ( talk) 07:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete-especially after reading the previous AfD. I see this article being a real POV fork, in either direction. For those who love them, they can slather unsourced Weasel Words and craft it as a Wiki-Memorial. For others, it can be a lightening rod for troll vandalism. But on the whole, I don't see how all the sums merits an article. 1.) He was a notable troll. Trolls are not inherently notable and in fact tend to have a short shelf life. Is anyone going to be looking up a particular internet troll 10 years from now? But he was "famous" in his own time and to that extent I would think he warrants his mention on the Internet troll page. 2.) The Petition. I could possibly see an argument for this having an article but in truth, it's best served with the mention it already has for on the Two Towers page. 3.) He posted a suicide note on the web. Sadly, this all too common and the nature of his suicide doesn't have the unique element that Brandon Vedas had in regards to internet culpability. Adding it all together, I just don't see a reason to keep it. Agne 02:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a list of everything ever mentioned in the press. Too-brief-fad. -- GWO
  • Keep. Notable in so many different ways. Internet troll culture, suicide and exploiting flaws. Viscid 08:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Delete I have merged the encyclopedic aspects of the Two Towers petition to The Two Towers (film)#9/11 "controversy". As some have mentioned, there might be some bits worthy of merging to Internet troll or the Slashdot pages. Goodbye, Klerck. KWH 08:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I actually like the article for sort-of-literary reasons that are hard to explain. It somehow got on my watchlist a fairly long time ago and it does get vandalized regularly, so I end up looking at it again every so often when fixing it. Its view into Klerck's personality adds some character to the encyclopedia, or something like that. I'm reminded also of User:Grace Note's and User:Vizjim's comments in Sam Sloan's AfD about AfD's on semi-notable, unusual personalities and I'm somewhat persuaded by their arguments when self-promotion isn't involved (and I'm a long way from being an inclusionist). Sam Blanning's remark that it doesn't matter who nominated the article is of course true, but the speedy nominator was blocked as a GNAA troll a few hours after making the nom. It will be ironic if a troll takes out the article after the regular editors have left it in peace for so long. Phr ( talk) 10:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The circumstances in which this has been nominated concern me. I think the nom could be an attempt at disruption. -- Tim1988 talk 10:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Trollish nomination or not, this subject really doesn't merit an article, and as usable content has been merged to appropriate locations, this is rendered unnecessary. It is sort of an interesting content, but it doesn't belong on this site. GassyGuy 11:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Speedy someone whose biggest claim to fame was posting an online petition to get a movie title changed??? Even if successful (and it wasn't), it wouldn't be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Actually there is some circumstantial evidence that the petition was partly successful. As reported in the LA Times, the LOTR filmmakers did a big benefit premiere of Fellowship of the Ring in NYC for a 9/11 charity, but then, subsequent to Klerck's petition making the internet rounds, they got cold feet at doing a similar premiere for the second film. However, it's not directly established (at least right now) that the second premiere was cancelled because of the petition. Phr ( talk) 09:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The petition got press coverage from around the world, and someone thought it was notable enough to document it in the "Two Towers" film article in its own section (I don't think I would have gone that far). It's attributed there to Klerck (originally without a wikilink) but that immediately raises the question "what kind of person would have done this?". And where else is anyone going to find the info? My original "keep" sentiments were lukewarm but I feel somewhat firmer about it now. Phr ( talk) 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Note that addition to the Two Towers article was just done today, and seems to be a response to this AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, sorry if it wasn't clear that I was responding to that. Phr ( talk) 02:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a memorial to dead losers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Q0 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete -- KJFhjf 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep' It can improve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.148.223 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep The article needs some work but is on someone with a relatively large importance on parts of the internet which had some effects into the real world as well Crummy 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Account created 2 days before the AfD was entered and has just a few edits, not sure that should be weighted. Phr ( talk) 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep This page is essential in documenting internet troll and GNAA culture. This infomation is of the kind that can be very easily lost. He was an important net personality at one point.-- CalPaterson 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Articles like this are not only non-notable but also glorify and support trolling. -- Vergardio 00:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Brand new account, jumps immediately into this afd and related ones, possible sock. Phr ( talk) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete -- TheEmoEater 01:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ka-Me-Ha-Me-Ha! Keep! This man is an icon of Trolling in the same way Che Guevara is an icon of socialist revolutionary movements worldwide!-- Gainax 01:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • New account, not sure what to make of contribs, doesn't appear sock-like. Phr ( talk) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Phr, I know this person in real life. Gainax is not a sock, and has just recieved a barnstar.-- CalPaterson 18:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Coment I don't see any Klerck t-shirts. -- Yunipo 05:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per norm -- Yunipo 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Brand new account, first contribution is to this AFD and next is to insert a bunch of {{fact}} tags into the Klerck article for things that were in fact documented in the references cited in the article.
  • Delete per Sam Blanning. -- Scientizzle 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - I completely agree with Agne. I was honestly strongly considering a Weak Keep, I guess partly in sympathy... but the points in keeping an article to Wiki standards outweigh that notion. The Two Towers Petition thing could be notable as an internet phenomenon, and yeah, could technically have its own article, actually. I see it's been merged into the film's article though, which I think is enough. His death, while tragic, is something that happens regularly in this world. Still, I think brief information about him in the internet troll article should stay intact as well though, as a sort of "famous example." Maybe a little more info could be added to the Two Towers article of his antic (maybe his death could fit in to the Trivia section, possibly, heh). -- Shadowolf 08:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as hard as it is for me to say - don't care much about the circumstances of nomination, this clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:V. All of this stuff sounds a bit fishy to me, especially the supposed trolling stuff (as in "disruptive behaviour even the most thick-headed hooligans can come up in two seconds flat"). And if all of this stuff were true, that still would barely climb above the notability threshold. The petition may or may not be notable in itself but that doesn't mean petitioner is. ("I believe every dog and wolf puppy should have an article." There. You can quote me on that. Now please make an article about me. Don't feel like? Well, neither do I.) And while suicides are always tragic, this is neither first of its kind nor notable in its own right, I'm terribly sorry. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 10:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I notice that the brand new user "Yunica" (who I suspect is yet another sock of the original nominator) recently went and spewed bogus {{fact}} tags all over the article, to make the verifiability issues look worse than they are (the tags were bogus because they were attached to items which were in fact already documented in the references section). I added footnotes to where most of the tags were, though to be fair there are still a few things needing to be checked out. Inserting those tags appears to have been a bad faith edit to manipulate the afd. If that was the version you saw, it would be nice if you could take another look. Most of the article is in fact pretty well sourced. Phr ( talk) 11:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Even with that stuff sourced, this person's notability is still rather marginal. Like I said, the petition is probably more infamous than the person. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 12:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Well sure, the newsmedia didn't report on the person because (like Jack the Ripper) he didn't attach his name to his activity; but unlike Jack the Ripper, there wasn't a trail of bodies and consequent huge manhunt, so there wasn't that much attempt to find the person behind the events. What documentation remains is of some historical interest, but it's fading away steadily and is mostly concentrated in places like this, and is simply going to be lost if the article is deleted. I see preserving that type of hard-to-collect documentation as part of why Wikipedia is here. Wikipedia shouldn't be entirely about video game characters. Phr ( talk) 12:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (Also see: No true Scotsman) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC). reply
  • Keep and cleanup, he's notable enough, with some of his activities cited and his death also fairly notable in the online community, though the "some... while others..." chaff really has to go. I think it's safe to remove any text flagged with the {{fact}} tags if they haven't been fixed by the conclusion of this AfD (assuming this article is kept). -- Deathphoenix ʕ 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Some more cites are now added. Phr ( talk) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment-I am a bit concerned at the path this AfD is starting to take, in particular with the isolating of users who favor delete for an examination of their "good faith". An AfD is never meant to be a vote and frankly, the three word "keep/delete per nom" reply is rather useless unless there is persuasive reasoning behind the view. Hence, there is not a need to "swift boat" the other side to try and cancel out their "vote". I do believe it is in the best interest of all to simply WP:AGF and state your reason for keep or deletion and leave it at that. There is no need to comment on each and every user's possible vote motivation. Agne 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:BIO. --Slgr @ndson ( page - messages - contribs) 16:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article also hardly expands. It seems a lot of the sites he used to go to deleted a lot of the things he's said. The suicide thing is also questionable to the lack of information. Markendust
    • Comment some people (myself included) believe his whole "suicide" was just an elaborate troll. -- Yunipo 02:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Agne, it is part of AFD policy that new accounts are supposed to weigh less in determining consensus; I made notes of all the ones I noticed, not just the "delete" supporters, to assist the closing admin and to alert those who might find themselves "piling on". I also believe there is sockpuppeting going on given the number of WP:SPA's participating here, a couple of whom have already been blocked. I even see possible issues of censorship on the part of the original apparently-GNAA-connected bad-faith speedy nominator and his/her possible associates or socks trying to suppress this article and now the similar one Brandon Vedas ( AfD by another brand new user). (That issue emphatically does not apply to the legitimate supporters of deletion on good-faith editorial grounds). Per Agne's request, I will stop adding such notes, but the closing admin and others should check the contributions of every participant. And, I only made such notes for the SPA's, not regular editors who favored deletion (though I responded to some of their arguments).

    Yunipo, on my first contact with the article, I also suspected the death (including the published obituary linked from the article) might be a hoax and I thought of AfD'ing it myself, but I checked it out off-web and confirmed it to my satisfaction, and that's how I started watching the article.

    Re the WP:BIO complaints: I agree that Klerck's personal notability per se is marginal per the guidelines, but I think the biographical info is important as background and context for his widely-reported activities (the article currently cites newspapers of 3 or 4 different countries). As a web user who has to deal with trolls, I'm interested in their biographies, just as people concerned with terrorism might study the biography of Mohammed Atta, to know what they're dealing with. Just about anyone (as Sam Blanning remarks) could do what Klerck did; and any airline pilot could do what Atta did--so why didn't they? One has to look for answers to "why do these guys do what they do?" and it's not enough to say "Atta attacked the WTC because he was a terrorist, end of story". So the biographies and their documentation are relevant in the search for understanding. That's why I find merging the petition stuff to the Two Towers movie and trashing the rest to be unsatisfactory. Phr ( talk) 10:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I am not closing this AfD, but I do not think this is notable, and agree it should be deleted -- Avi 04:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG KEEP. I don't care if he is notable or not but the article is helpful for people who study cybersociology. I hadn't expected to read such a thing when I was looking for the word " troll". I ask you: WHAT WOULD YOU GAIN IN DELETING THIS WELL-WRITTEN PAGE? There are trillions or articles topped with unadulterated BS. Why do you not delete them? And some arrogant people are not paying attention to people who didn't contribute much with their usernames. EVERYONE is equal here.

WHY HAS SOME LOSER APPLIED FOR DELETION FOR THE SECOND TIME WHEN THIS ARTICLE HAS ALREADY BEEN VOTED FOR A "KEEP" (No, I didn't mean concubine) IN THE FIRST AfD DEBATE? BADMINton 09:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mo0[ talk] 04:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mano Mudd

Looks hoaxish, zero Google hits ( WP:V). I shouldn't even have bothered with the PROD, of course... Sandstein 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. In this discussion I feel that the keep recommendations hold very little water in relation to our established policies; indeed many of these votes appear to vouch for the limited playerbase of this game. This discussion has convinced me that ActsMUD fails to meet our criteria regarding notability - as may some of our other articles on small MUDs. Rje 23:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

ActsMUD

  • This article is non-notable, and falls under WP:VAIN. It is a homemade game with unknown cultural impact. It also violates Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as it contains self-published fiction. It is not encyclopedic in my opinion. There are several other MUD articles similar to this one, but I'd like to have a discussion on this one before rolling them all up for AfD. JRavn 17:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
self-published fiction are not all MUDs self-published? It is not common sense to apply that to MUDs as they are all self-published almost by definition. Well ActsMUD came out of a university so the homemade bit is not actually accurate, but are not most of MUDs 'homemade'? -- Zeth, 23 July 2006
The author of ActsMUD tries to establish that his mud falls under Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) which I'm disagreeing with here. Whether or not all MUDs are self-published is another issue (I would say that commercial MUDs are not). -- JRavn 21:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete Has just 14 unique Google hits (and that's even being generous and counting the Wikipedia ones). According to TopMUDSites, is has an average of 1-5 players online.

Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

14 unique Google hits - is a little misleading since the MUD only just settled on a single name (used to be a mix of Acts World, Acts MUD, ActsMUD and others). To see how meaningless the so called 'google test' is compare 5,180,00 hits for "Acts MUD". -- Zeth, 23 July 2006
The Google test can be a very valid notability test, as long as the search is done reasonably. The search query "Acts MUD" results in 29. Your example, 'acts mud', results in the 5+ million, but is not a good query as it is entirely too vague. 'acts mud zeth' (zeth for your telnet/www address) results in ~100, many of which have nothing at all to do with your MUD.
Your devotion to your MUD (I don't know if you're a player or an imm, but your nick combined with the places address suggests you are something) is most understandable, but the game is simply not notable, and Wikipedia is not a MU*-list.
-- Phorteetoo 03:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep
It is a very new and quite small MUD. It is however not quite as small as some of the other sites in the MU* games, some of which appear to be dead. The Google test is not really the best for MUDs as once you log in, there is very little need for the web any more, as all the relevant info will be there.
There are several other MUD articles similar to this one - similar in the sense that they define small MUDs? There are no other MUDs featured here that deal with the ancient historical world. Therefore the article is a bit more notable than some of the others since there are a lot of articles dealing with similar medieval fantasy themes.
A wider question is whether articles about individual MUDs should be included at all. However if you have bloodlust and want to delete the page then you would have to go through the rest of the articles too. -- Zeth, 23 July 2006
The other MUD articles are similar because they are also non-notable and not encyclopedic. Having unique content in your MUD does not make it notable. If you would like to make people aware of historical themes in MUDs, a section on themes could be added to the MUD article. -- JRavn 21:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are different types of MUD, some commercial with huge advertising budgets, some homegrown, many medieval, a few sci-fi, a few historical, some big, some small. It seems sensible that the Wikipedia should have at least one real example of all of them. I think that Wikipedia should have at least one example of a historical MUD (note they are all quite small), so is it not better that you save deleting this article until someone adds a better example? -- Jimbo06 13:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
What example have you got that is better? -- Zeth, 23 July 2006
Well LegendMUD is kind of historically focused. I think there are two issues here. 1 is that the Wikipedia Mods do not like lots of articles about individual medium to small MUDs. 2. There is not a very wide range of coverage in the MUD treatment on Wikipedia. If we separate out these issues then a sensible way forward is to ditch the individual articles and focus attention on having an article about MUD themes and genres. -- Jimbo06 13:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I would just like to point out that Jimbo06 is the creator of ActsMUD and the initial author of the wikipedia article. Also, this comment has been discussed in Talk:ActsMUD. -- JRavn 21:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
And User:JRavn currently developing an active MUD based off of CircleMUD. -- Jimbo06 09:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Come on boys (or girls) no need to make it personal, We all agree that the current situation needs a bit of thought. We all agree that Wikipedia needs to cover MUDs in some way, and that having a wikipedia page for every single MUD is possibly not maintainable. The question now is do we merge parts of this content into another article or lose the whole thing? We could merge all 5-6 articles dealing with CircleMUD MUDs into one article. Then the page could be maintained with half-a-dozen varied examples of how the CircleMUD has been and is being used. These examples could be replaced over time as required. -- Zeth 10:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Jimbo06, the WP:AfD clearly states to mention if you have a vested interest in the article in question. I merely pointed this out in the interest of fairness, there is no personal attack here. -- JRavn 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • One option would be to Merge into a new article CircleMUD games, I am also arguing that the stub Necromium be merged in, and the rest if and when everyone is happy with the new article. -- Zeth 10:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
So what I am proposing is that we make a new page about CircleMUD games, and then over there to carry on the debate about what half-a-dozen MUDs we choose to show the wide range of CircleMUD uses. There will then be no need for individual pages such as this.-- Zeth 10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The original issue still remains. Wikipedia is not a collection of links or examples, neither is it a place for people to host their private MUD webpage. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and Wikipedia:Five_pillars are good references. If we want to create a page devoted to examples of CircleMUDs, there must be something notable to say about them that specifically relates to those examples. I don't see what there could be that wouldn't better be placed on the MUDs or CircleMUD page. -- JRavn 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think this is worth an article, it quite clearly explains an actual game which may not have many players but does exist. There are much more obscure things on Wikipeda. The article doesn't make out to advertise and gives precise information which is straight to the point. ( Neostinker 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)) reply


Wikipedia isn't an indiscrimate collection of information. An article needs more than existence and good writing to make it encyclopedic. -- JRavn 02:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Before you have a conspiracy theory JRavn, I have never heard of Neostinker before. Has "notability" become an idol or a golden calf? Wikipedia is not a printed book. Is Wikipedia really that short of Server space? -- Zeth 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure that 'indiscriminate collection of information' is fair here. The MUDconnector is not a GDFL or other free content licenced site, so its existence does not necessarily demand that a good collection of MUDs are not covered here. Encyclopedia Britannica website exists so should we delete all the articles that are covered there? Plenty of technical lists exist on the Internet, should we then delete all the descriptions of small software packages on this wiki? By no means!! The Wikipedia can provide much that the MUDconnector can not. Firstly anyone can edit, secondly there is the NPOV and so on. -- Zeth 22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I know what you're saying Zeth, but again, Wikipedia isn't an indiscrimate collection of information. Just because anyone can add to it doesn't mean we should store any random knowledge we would like. You are more than free to create your own MUD listing wiki that anyone can edit - but that is not Wikipedia's purpose. It is commonly accepted that an article needs some notability to be on Wikipedia. It is also commonly accepted that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be listings (of websites, or MUDs) unless there is notability involved (such as a listing of America's richest people). ActsMUD, as cool as the MUD and its theme sounds, doesn't have any notability. Or if it does, it hasn't been shown yet - only examples of non-notability. -- JRavn 14:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete as non-notable. Discount votes from sock/meat puppets. Ifnord 16:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 21:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ruuz

Aricle for a nearly-empty web directory that fails to meet the notability guidelines. It was initially PROD-ed, but both that template and the notability template were removed by the article's creator. - EurekaLott 17:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mo0[ talk] 04:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Applegate Christian Fellowship

Seems like a vanity article, and I'm not convinced of the subject's notability. Katr67 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as non-notable. And isn't vanity a sin? Byrgenwulf 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Artw 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no assertion of notability. Being a mega-church doesn't cut it. GRBerry 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of white powders

Article is of no merit whatsoever; prior VfD led to decision to make this a disamb. page but that has not transpired. Article will never be complete, and there are no simillar pages for other colours. MikeMorley 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment. I moved it from a dab page because it did not meet the criteria for a dab page. I don't think it's adding much value here. -- cmh 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 (contested) - Richardcavell 01:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Nathan Hanneman

Non-notable editor of a non-notable magazine. Less than 2'000 hits for his name, and only 350 for HorrorHound Magazine, the website of which has an Alexa traffic ranking of 1,644,460. RandyWang ( raves/ rants) 10:29, 16 July 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, Mailer Diablo 17:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Porqin 18:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- GWO
  • Keep classic case of a niche sub-culture where the google test is utterly worthless as a measure of notability. The article

establishes clearly that the magazines he edited, and the books he wrote, where exceptional *within* his niche sub-culture. -- Cimon Avaro, on a pogostick

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Punkmorten 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Serguei's Destiny

Non-notable game, doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE Xyzzyplugh 15:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 transwiki to wikibooks cookbook. It does look like something someone made up, let them decide if they want to keep it. - Bobet 12:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Jarabacoa Cocktail

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book. Eluchil404 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Transwiki But Wikibooks cookbooks is! Yank sox 16:36, 16 July 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, Mailer Diablo 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.. This has been on AfD for two weeks with minimal interest, I doubt a second relisting will provoke any of the lacking enthusiasm for this discussion. I feel the silence speaks volumes here, indicating the character is not notable and therefore not deserving of an article. Rje 23:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Zhao Qiang

Delete as a non-notable fictional person. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:32, 16 July 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, Mailer Diablo 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no need for an article on this fictional character. It can be merged to the movies page if appropriate. -- Porqin 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge along with all of the other characters from the series into Dream Team Characters. -- TheFarix ( Talk) 18:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Punkmorten 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Loomlu

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Topic lacks verifiability. — Caesura (t) 17:14, 16 July 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, Mailer Diablo 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Punkmorten 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Symbyo Technologies

Vanity article created by User:Symbyo Naconkantari 18:22, 16 July 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, Mailer Diablo 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mauds Ice Cream

Blatant advertising, no sources cited Atomsprengja 23:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep. Article is not referenced or written in an appropriate style, but the brand is indeed famous in Northern Ireland at least, and has some measure of notability south of the border also. I recommend leaving it unless someone improves it - it is preferable to someone finding nothing under that article title. The article quality is embarrassing, but hey, Wikipedia is full of such articles (just click random article). zoney ♣ talk 23:31, 19 July 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, Mailer Diablo 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, unless someone is willing to rewrite the artile with sources, in neutral prose. -- Porqin 18:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete copyvio from [21] Dlyons493 Talk 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete as copyvio, advertising. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep & Edit Seems to be a legit company, just needs to be edited to remove advert tone. Some users seem to think that every article based on a business must be removed which is not the case.
  • delete. Fails WP:CORP. -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 15:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep I'll try and fix it myself - there's not too much advertising that can't be edited out and there's also some useful information. Is it alright now? - THE GREAT GAVINI { T- C} 14:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete the article is much improved and the copyvio is gone (well done on the cleanup!). But the issue of WP:CORP still remains - if there were a reliable source showing it to be the largest producer in N.I. my feeling is that would meet WP:CORP - the one given in the article may be correct, but I can't lend it much credence (it's a small commercial site). Dale Farm Ice Cream used to be (maybe still is) the brand leader for a long time. Can someone find a reliable source? Dlyons493 Talk 16:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the recently edited version by Greatgavini. Yamaguchi先生 02:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, therefore keep. Nandesuka 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Canadian identity

This page was successfully prodded with the concern, which I concurred with: Entire article is one long POV rant built from sterotypes and leftover material rejected by the main Canada article and related articles such as Culture of Canada, Demographics of Canada, Immigration to Canada, Geography of Canada, Politics of Canada, Multiculturalism, and History of Canada. Article duplicates existing articles and resurects old materials deleted due to their bias with a POV flare. Relisting on AfD after objections were raised on my talk page (listed here as first keep comment). Delete. Kimchi.sg 18:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep - Had I known beforehand that the Canadian identity was on the block to be deleted, I would have objected.... Here are the reasons I propose to keep it...:
  • Length - most articles listed on WP:PROD, in my quick random survey, are short - a sentence to two paragraphs. Canadian identity was considerably longer. The length also supports that it is more than some random user’s vanity page, and has been a collaborative effort, one of the main goals of Wikipedia..
  • Notability - Canada is indeed notable (I hope no one would dispute that). I agree that the question “What does it mean to be a Canadian?” is a slightly different topic, but I would suggest that it is a question that is fundamental to the country. From the American Revolution on, the simple answer was “not American.” Why was Canada formed? In part, to keep from becoming American. The same reason is why British Columbia joined confederation, why the west (now Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) was the subject of a huge drive on the part of the Canadian government to be settled, and why the Yukon Territory was formed. See also Canadian confederation. Canada is also special in the fact that its boundaries were not defined by war, ethic group, or common history, like most other nations (Europe, especially comes to mind).
  • POV - it doesn’t surprise me that the article comes across without a NPOV. By vary nature, the article implies a point of view, because it is about how Canadians see themselves. As noted above, not being American is an important part of that. See “Mild anti-Americanism” in Canadian literature and the article on Molson’s I am Canadian commercials. I would welcome anyone to edit out the POV, but I would challenge them to do so without removing the facts. In any case, the mild POV throughout does not seem to cloud the message
  • Uniqueness of topic - as you noted, the material here does not readily fit elsewhere. The topic is complex enough to require its own article, as demonstrated by its length. I read the articles that you suggested the material should be in, and found no significant overlap.
  • Accuracy - this, above all, it what impressed me most about the article - it explained what it means to be Canadian in a clear, concise, and accurate manner. It is the sort of article I would point my American friends to. The clear explanation in and of itself is reason enough, in my mind, to keep the article.
  • Suggestions for expansion/improvement (things I would be willing to undertake):
    • how the adoption of the maple leaf flag see Image:Flag of Canada.svg has made the maple leaf the Canadian symbol
      • how the maple leaf (or Canadian flag) is frequently attached by Canadian travelers to their backpacks to keep from being mistaken for Americans, who are stereotypically loud and rude
    • British ties, their influence on things such as architecture (I’m thinking of Victoria) and parliament
    • differences between French and Quebecois culture
    • folk songs such as I’s the b’y
    • issues with a united country and culture over the vast distance (it’s over 5000km from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador to Victoria, BC)
    • insuring relevant articles have a link to Canadian identity and the see also section at the end of the article remains relevant
...– Mr Minchin Canada 04:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article definitely needs some cleaning, may have some mild POV-flavouring and so forth, but that's hardly a pair of criterion for deleting it. Rather, those are criteria for improving it.
The article topic is perfectly encyclopaedic
Large sections of the article are well sourced and referenced. Some parts may not be, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The claim that the information is also in other articles is wholly irrelevent. If article A and article B have the same content, they should be merged. But if the information in article A can be found scattered across articles B through Z, it makes sense to also have article A, rather than forcing users to scour 25 articles looking for information on a single topic. WilyD 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is nothing more than an OR rambling social commentary. I highly doubt that any authoritative source has grasped what "Canadian identity" is, and any attempt at doing so is OR. The references provided are, I imagine, also personal and explorative meanderings on the subject, and we cannot base an encyclopedia article on this. Also, at most 3 of them relate directly to the topic at hand, maybe just 1. The article is also riddled with weasel words to account for the lack of academic backing "Many Canadians believe...", "Canadians often like to see themselves as brave warriors", etc. In short, the article is hopelessly and irrevocably OR. AdamBiswanger1 18:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Reporting Pierre Burton's thoughts on what it is to be Canadian is hardly OR, same goes for Robertson Davies. If you have problems with parts of the article, article them and work on it, but to delete this article is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Parts of it may fail WP:OR, but the article does not overall. WilyD 18:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep Come on, people. Of course there are sections that aren't NPoV: they're about how Canadians perceive themselves. It needs cleanup, not a wholesale slaughter. Doogie2K (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Mr Minchin covered all the relevant points. -- ColourBurst 20:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete per nom and AdamBiswanger1. This is an essay masquerading as an encyclopedia entry. It is far too subjective and personal. What constitutes "Canadian identity" mostly a matter of opinion, speculation and conjecture. "Canadian identity" pretty much varies from province to province, region to region and, in many respects, from person to person. Many of the sources cited are opinions in and of themselves. That does not make the statements in the article relying upon those sources factual. Agent 86 21:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I would also like to add that there is an article on Canadian culture. AdamBiswanger1 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep I agree. If the issue is with the POV, it needs a discussion on the talk page, not to be listed on AfD. Canadian identity is unique, it's not American, and it's not British, but a combonation of many different cultures and traditions. - Royalguard11 Talk 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Canadian identity doesn't exist. Neither does American identity or British identity or French identity. Well, it probably does exist, but the idea is far too vague and subjective to warrant an encyclopedia or even a stab at definition. AdamBiswanger1 00:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Maybe that's why there aren't articles on British identity, French identity, Australian identity, Greek identity, or Kenyan identity. (There's one on American identity, but it's really an article about a book.) Agent 86 01:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I actually nominated that redirect for deletion earlier today : ) AdamBiswanger1 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe that there is a seperate Canadian identity. One we've tried to define for 139 years. The main reason we try to make sure people know is so we don't get mixed up with our neighbour to the south. We don't like being called "American's" because we aren't. We have our own identity. In WWI and WWII, we tried to secure our own identity, seperate from the Brits. Now it's from the Yanks. - Royalguard11 Talk 03:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Canadians' obsession with their own identity is one of their core characteristics. The article needs some cleanup, and there will always be some NPOV problems that will need watching, but it still should be kept. -- Whpq 00:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but shorten and rewrite from essay into article. BTW, Canada's borders were also established by war (see French and Indian War and War of 1812). Not sure where some of you got the idea that it wasn't. Deet 11:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
By war, I meant in the way that Isreal established it's borders by the 6 day war; the French and Indian War occured in 1754-63, more than 100 years before Canada was a country (see BNA Act (1867)), and the War of 1812 was more than 50 years before Canada was a country, and ended in status quo ante bellum. The vast majority of US-Canadian borders were established through negotions between the US, Canada, and Britian over the years. -- Mr Minchin Canada 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Further Comment I suppose a section at the top (of the article) should be added explaining the significance of the Canadian identity to Canadians. I think part of this comes down to a discussion of "soft" vs "hard" encyclodeadic enteries. By hard, I mean things like Carbon, something that is defined by facts and figures; by soft, I's refering to topics which are defined by ideas (perhaps like Self-concept). Much policy on Wikipedia seems to have been developed regarding what "hard" topics should and should not be included, but I haven't read anything on the policy of which "soft" topics to include. If someone is aware of such a policy, could they point me there? Thanks, -- Mr Minchin Canada 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per User:Agent 86.
  • Entire article is one long POV rant built from sterotypes and leftover material rejected by the main Canada article and related articles such as Culture of Canada, Demographics of Canada, Immigration to Canada, Geography of Canada, Politics of Canada, Multiculturalism, and History of Canada. Article duplicates existing articles and resurects old materials deleted due to their bias with a POV flare describes this article perfectly, its parts should be split and added to "real" articles on Canada at the most.
  • If anyone took the time to look, the only "real" article that links here is Culture of Canada, the others are nothing more then old mentions on old talk pages.
  • Throw the baby out with the bath water? Heall yeah! and throw it far far away and make sure its dead. The article is so unencyclopaedic its not even funny.
  • By no means does it "explain what it means to be Canadian in a clear, concise, and accurate manner", in fact it does the opposite, pushing an insulting false representation of Canadians everywhere. I would be ashamed to show this to any of my American acquaintances.
  • The very suggestion that this specific " Canadian identity" exists is POV itself, and best described as superficial make-belief (this coming from a proud Canadian).
  • There is no single so-called "Canadian identity", and if you make one for every possible imaginable group, (i.e. Canadian identy (terrorists), Canadian identy (right wingers), Canadian identity (socialists)), where are you going to stop? Are you going to do it for every country? Allowing this article to continue to exist sets a terrible precedence for Wikipedia.
  • Again, most, if not all of it is redundant given that the Culture of Canada article already exists. Also, sections on Frech-Canadians and Quebec have been superseded by Culture of Quebec. 198.103.172.9 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Misza 13 T C 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Arthur "Spud" Spudinski

Right now, this article is complete fanfiction BS, claiming that this character's brothers star on shows on other networks. Even if this was a well-written article, "Spud" isn't notable enough of a character to get his own page and this would need to be merged into the main article. Finally, the page itself isn't a very useful redirect. I vote delete. KingTT 22:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 18:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Vice-grip-strong delete I... uh... what? I'm with the nom- even if the article was the best-written article ever, it still would have insufficient notability. Of course, the state of the article certainly doesn't help. -- Kicking222 23:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. -- DarkAudit 00:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, speedily if possible, per all above. GassyGuy 11:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 21:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of Cars in Forza Motorsport

Reads more like a FAQ; hardly content worthy of an encyclopedia. The equivalent article for Gran Turismo 4 is nominated for the same reason. GSMalette 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This should be merged with this article here: Forza Motorsport.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.221.52.221 ( talk • contribs)

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

The result was speedy delete repost, just sticking {{ db-repost}} on the page would have done the job. Kimchi.sg 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Quantified Marketing Group

This page was nominated and deleted in April 2006 as spam. Fails WP:CORP - not withstanding 1,740,000 hits on Google - supposedly. It meets WP:SPAM. Nominate for Speedy Delete KarenAnn 14:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The Quennells and others

All articles apparently about a British band and its albums/EPs/singles, added by the user 6Z1X1W6: smells to me like a systematic hoax. The following articles are involved:

I've never read about this band in the British press, nor have I heard one of their releases on the radio or seen one in a music store. The only Google results are Wikipedia articles. The Quennells also contains demonstrably false information, e.g. it says 'the band was nominated for two awards at the 2005 Brit Awards' but this is not true. None of the articles cite any sources, reputable or otherwise.

Information about this 'band' has also been added to Island Records [22], 2004 in music [23], All I Have [24], Britpop [25] and List of Britpop musicians [26].

Delete all as a hoax. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 18:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - A 2004 album that sold 5.5 million copies? That would have been one major news story, but I can't find any references to it anywhere - delete as insidious hoax designed to discredit wikipedia and block creator permanently. exolon 18:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks - why do people bother? The pub mentioned (The Albion, Thornhill Road) is a tiny place noted for the garden being larger than the bar. Eddie.willers 18:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ASAP, sanction creator, delete links in other articles. NawlinWiki 18:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per nom, remove edits in other articles, and issue warning to user who wrote these. Wickethewok 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Speedy if poss. Clear hoax. Have begun cleaning up other articles. Ban/block user. You can't assume good faith on such a campaign of fiction. OK. I think I got all the incoming links, though it'd be nice if someone could check. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom. GWO, you were successful. -- Dhartung | Talk 02:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't forget to kill the images that go along with these articles if they are deleted. 68.39.174.238 12:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Punkmorten 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

EDM 2251

A motion in the British parliament that might not be notable even if it passes - but it hasn't passed yet. NawlinWiki 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Punkmorten 22:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Vgcritics

Nonnotable gaming website. NawlinWiki 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Google has < 300 hits for it. Doesn't qualify per WP:WEB, and is an advertisement. -- Porqin 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB badly. — Caesura (t) 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. -- Steel 23:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as vandalism and borderline nonsense. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Reece akhtar

Hoax. — Caesura (t) 18:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Per nom (no WP:V). -- Porqin 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete and tagged as such, patent nonsense (for example, subject supposedly died of AIDS in 1956). NawlinWiki 19:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as author's request. Kimchi.sg 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Nulla bona

I created this article in response to a requested articles listing, but I doubt it will ever be more than a definition (I'm new here so I hope I'm following the policies appropriately) BrentG 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • You're the only author, so you can request a speedy delete. Edit the article and place {{db-author}} at the top. Fan-1967 19:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Punkmorten 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Zero Down

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. --Slgr @ndson ( page - messages - contribs) 19:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Band comprised of members of other notable band, artist on notable indie label. PT ( s-s-s-s) 23:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep based on having at least two members that were with other notable bands. -- Joelmills 03:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - They're a notable band, more notable than many bands already on wikipedia. Tiburon 13:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 20:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Dan Voors

Artist has no albums released, 1st one will not be until October, also has not performed outside of SW Wisconsin. Right not, nn, but in the future could be. Wildthing61476 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Artist's first album released as an EP. Clip from a song off of the EP is available on the artist's Pure Volume page. The October release is a wide release of the EP with a few extra tracks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.233.115 ( talk • contribs)

  • Delete An EP which has one song currently available through the artist's website, is not sufficient to satisfy WP:MUSIC. As WildThing says, maybe in the future, but this artist doesn't seem to qualify yet. Fan-1967 19:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No albums, not signed to a major label and no touring fails most if not all of the guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Artist is not currently notable. DrunkenSmurf 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per above. See also Djv and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djv -- Baron Larf 15:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of Halo 2 changes

Video game cruft. Can be condensed and merged with Halo 2. Doogie2K (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - The important information in this article should be covered in the Halo and Halo 2 articles. The rest of it is minute details that aren't fit for a general encyclopedia. Wickethewok 20:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - an indiscriminate collection of trivia, suitable for a fansite, but unlikely to be useful in an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Gamecruft Artw 22:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Whispering 23:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 09:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, with reservations Strictly speaking, this article is unecessary. A lot of it doesn't really merit coverage and things like the changes to the weapons and vehicles should have been in their respective articles, but those were deleted. There's no good place for some of the information now, some of which is both verifiable and worth keeping. Ace of Sevens 10:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seeing as you all have destroyed every other article this info was in, why delete this one too? Can you find an example where this page violates Wikipedia's rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs ( talk • contribs)
    • Comment Note that I said condense and merge. There's no reason why this can't be summarized on the main Halo 2 article. It is relevant when speaking of Halo 2, but not notable to the point of requiring s separate article. That's the distinction. Doogie2K (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • AfD is not the place for merge requests. You need to us the {{mergeto}} or {{mergefrom}} templates if that's what you want. Ace of Sevens 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close. See the reaction for the merge requests first. Incidentally, I agree with the merge, this topic doesn't need its own article, but the merge should be attempted first. -- SevereTireDamage 08:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: AfD is not the place to propose a merge. try using {{ mergto}} and {{ mergefrom}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia!= Gamefaqs. + Fin 13:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The factr that the nom propsed a merge does not mean that the game guide should not be deleted. Wikipedia's not the place for game guide information. Proto:: type 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Much of this could be put in relevant articles, for instance List of Weapons in the Halo Universe, but... oh, wait, those were deleted too! In fact, you've deleted every and any article this information could be disseminated to. Huh. David Fuchs 17:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Actually it seems like the important changes could be added to Halo 2 easily. Also, the articles of which you speak were deleted by general consesus of WP editors, not by any single user. Wickethewok 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 MOVED TO A SUBPAGE OF THE HALO WIKIPROJECT. This is article is a mess, and the delete opinions are absolutely right that this is unsourced and better covered elsewhere. That said, a lot of this could be sourced and either turned into a proper spinoff article of Halo: Combat Evolved or just merged there. I'm going to send this to that project to use as raw material for better articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 09:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved

Video game cruft. Can be condensed and merged with Halo: Combat Evolved. Doogie2K (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - as it is, this is a terrible article full of original research and individual weapon listings for each map. After deleted, if anyone wants to start a more encyclopedic article complete with (gasp!) sources, I would not oppose that. However, this article is bad to the point that I don't want to see anyone base a new article off of this one or even to have it in the article history. Wickethewok 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, starting with a rewrite -- from scratch if necessary. The original Halo did advance the state of multiplayer gaming, and its place in gaming history is based as much on the success of its multiplayer as on its allegedly compelling story, so a separate article on the subject would be justified. However, after wading through this article, I had learned very little about the advances Halo actually made; most of this is an overdetailed exposition of all the aspects of Halo multiplayer that didn't set it apart from previous games!
    Well, the bit about warthog jumping was quite interesting, but that section seems to be talking about a trick that was developed and normally performed in single-player mode... — Haeleth Talk 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - already covered elsewhere, better. Artw 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the fact that Wikipedia is not a game guide which this article is and the article also violates WP:NOR. Whispering 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 09:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Unlike the Halo 2 article, where I said keep, this one seems to be padded out with fluff. It's not original research, though. Things like player culture and gametypes should be covered, but the map list is overly detailed at best and perhaps unecessary. Revise it and see if there's enough left to justify a separate article still. And merge requests shoudl be done with merge tags, not AfDs. Ace of Sevens 10:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete People just add junk to it. I rewrote a lot of it, but it's mostly still just rubbish - why should corpse humping, modding and a description of each level be in a multiplayer article? + Fin 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Split into other articles. This article has some valid content, but it really doesn't all belong in the same place like this. -- gakon5 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Numerous parts of the article, including about half of the map list, look like they belong in a strategy guide. Woodrow Buzard 02:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per Haeleth and Ace of Sevens. It definitely needs a rewrite to trim out the overly specific map detail (doesn't need weapons lists and pictures for every map), and sources (especially for things like the supposed crotch-humping). -- SevereTireDamage 08:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Corpse humping is a fairly common thing in online games, espeically in FPSs; not just in Halo. It's also become a fairly fixated part of FPS subculture. -- gakon5 18:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Good, then it shouldn't be hard to find sources for that particular aspect. Wickethewok 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Condense and merge to Halo: Combat Evolved. The original research, unencyclopedic information and generally low quality of writing make this article impossible to keep, but there are some elements here that could be used in Halo's article. JimmyBlackwing 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there is already a brief and sufficient overview of this information in the parent article, no need to merge anything. Proto:: type 11:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Halo: Combat Evolved. Or at least look over this to see if anything can be added to the Halo article. -- Quadraxis 20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or merge until a properly sourced article on multiplayer can be written. It has encyclopedic potential, but the material needs a rewrite. — TKD:: Talk 23:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to the closing admin: Please delink and delete {{ halomap}} as a {{ db-author}} request if this is anything but outright kept the list of maps is condensed or deleted. That template serves only to aid in linking to subsections of this article, and is pointless without this article. — TKD:: Talk 23:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Otto Witte. Already done. Ifnord 16:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Otto I of Albania

Article is a hoax, or at least a suspected one with strong evidence, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Article of questionable validity about Albania The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • If Otto Witte is true, then this should redirect to that. If otto Witte is also nonsense, then both articles should be deleted. User:Zoe| (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Otto Witte while merging if there is anything to be merged; this article in Time is a reference from a reputable source. -- Lambiam Talk 20:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Otto Witte as described above. Future research may show that his tale of kingship was false but it appears the man really existed.-- Cam 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Otto Witte. Whether true or false, it is verifiable. Curtains99 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of social networking websites

Listcruft. Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. We have some categories that do this job. -- Chris (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep I too have used this list for a recent discussion on online social networking sites and without this list I would have been lost!!! As other folks have noted below, this list is not a list of links, but rather examples of social network sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belindalibrarian ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC). reply
  • Strong Keep I've found this page to be useful for research purposes on multiple occassions. In addition it seems to be well referenced and is a demonstration of the type of fresh data that can easily be put together and presented via wiki.
  • Keep, this is a useful page that lets you see at a glance how many SNSes actually have a certain amount of members, as well as specifically focused services, and who is allowed to register. It's well-maintained and has a lot of good sources. Ashibaka tock 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment an awful lot of those sites seem to violate WP:WEB. Artw 21:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep as a very useful and well-researched list. Czj 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep; useful information, and it does do something categories can't. Spam appears to be common but speedily removed. My only concern is that while it's well maintained now, it would not be immediately obvious if that stopped being the case, at which point it would quickly become misleading; that's not a reason to delete it by any means, but I would urge the maintainers to consider ways of mitigating the problem (perhaps change the "User count" heading to something like "User count as of 2006"?) — Haeleth Talk 22:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Many of the references list the dates the information was gathered. Czj 17:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, wikipedia is not a directory, and I cannot see any useful comparitive value in what are apparently a completely disparate set of websites. If sites are notable they should have their own article and should be in an appropriate category. -- pgk( talk) 09:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep We have lists of instant messengers, web browsers, etc. I don't see why we shouldn't have a list of social networking sites. However, spam is a huge concern. I propose we permanently semi-protect the article, like RuneScape. Or vote to prohibit anonymous editing on Wikipedia. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Having other lists is irrelevant, many of those are possibly potential deletion candidates, but regardless we are discussing the merits of this particular article not any other. -- pgk( talk) 15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, but the nominator proposed this by appealing to existing Wikipedia consensus (i.e., WP:NOT) rather than arguing why we shouldn't have such lists. It's therefore relevant to point out the existance of large numbers of "List of" articles, since that suggests that lists aren't against this consensus.
In fact, just take a look at Category:Lists, with all the subcategories and who knows how articles. Are we debating that many or all of those lists should be deleted too, or is there something special about this article? So far the arguments put forward suggest the former, but it's probably better to raise this somewhere more general. Mdwh 19:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Firstly, I disagree this comes under WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information - I don't believe it comes under any of those examples listed, and disagree this is indiscriminate. Secondly, Categories do not display user counts, description/focus and registration type, so it is not true that they do the job. Thirdly, in response to Pgk, I disagree this comes under wikipedia is not a directory - that refers to excessive external links in an article, not these "Lists of Wikipedia Articles", of which there are many examples on Wikipedia. Mdwh 18:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this looks like a useful comparison that collects information in a form that can't be found anywhere else. Much of the information is cited. If there are non-notable sites or unverifiable claims they should be removed, but that doesn't justify deleting the article. Wmahan . 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Mdwh's reasons. — getcrunk what?! 20:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep category alone doesn't reflect member numbers or membership criteria. Stev0 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep doesn't look too indiscriminate to me. -- Liface 21:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Not indiscriminate, and attempts to be a useful list. Some citations would be useful where needed, though. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This list seems very usefull. I propose we permanently semi-protect the article, and add a request for add for spam-filter. NickVet419 21:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Useful list. Englishrose 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I understand the doubts about this article, but a few of us are pretty vigilant about keeping it "discriminate" and free of linkspam. It's not easy--this and articles like it are an obvious target for promotion. ·  rodii · 01:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. But add a column that specifically gives the date associated with each user count. And lock the article. JohnSmart 22 July 2006
  • Keep per Ashibaka & others. —  Natha n ( talk) / 02:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there are tons of sites out there so i was thinking... Exsept those that are networking sites, thats what the list is for... If its not wikipedable-notible, keep it to just a link to the site... who says one network site is better than another. NickVet419 06:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but remove the user count column, unless all sites can be compared on an equal footing - eg. audited user figures from the same source. Otherwise it is open to inaccuracy and abuse. -- Ste 13:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep — I appreciate that this list is prone to spam additions but a number of us have worked hard to keep these removed. I think it's useful, any non-notable sites listed should be taken to AfD and if deleted, removed from the list └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep This is an informative, useful list. Doctor Bruno 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: As I said above, I'm all for keeping this, but perhaps we should rename this to "List of notable social networking websites" since that's what it really is. Czj 17:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve / fix. Lists are more useful than categories. We just need to make sure all sites listed are notable and belong in wiki, to keep it from being spammed. -- George100 22:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I find this list a useful tool that I use quite frequently. Noah 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No vote. The current list is fine as long as it's properly maintained. My concern is that it's spam fodder, so I'm wary of endorsing it. -- Alan Au 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's pretty well-compiled (hence the references) and can definately see how one can make good use out of it. DrWho42 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This page collates additional information into a useful table, similarly to Comparison of instant messengers. This adds value beyond a category. — Michael Shields 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep This page is awesome, and one of the ones I go to most frequently on the wiki. What's the benefit in deleting it? Please keep it - it's a topic that almost everyone is interested in now, and it is really really good information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.66.59.179 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. It's usefull. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manav.arya on the discussion page by mistake, and copied here. • ( talk contribs) .
  • Strong Delete This list seems mainly to promote social networking sites. Tried to add socialseeker.com at one point and was deleted for that very reason, but the main sites seem to stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imabadfish ( talk • contribs)
Comment - Presumably because it's non-notable (98 Google hits, and the article was deleted). I don't see how conforming to WP:WEB is an argument against having an article! Mdwh 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep -- Yunipo 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per the reasons stated above, with support for some wording about notability. Oh, and that it is quite helpful in my Test-MySpace template. :) — WAvegetarian• (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - too too many websites have been deleted from the list without a real reason , while another silly websites been listed , i consider this article as an advertisment page . Ammar 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mystral Tide

Nonnotable experimental music project, 171 unique Ghits, article still says their CD is "expected to arrive in 2005". NawlinWiki 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to delete. Please put the citations in, and I hope that everyone who contributed will keep an eye on this article. - brenneman {L} 06:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Glassing

All this article says is that sometimes people in bars fight each other with broken glass. No explanation of whether the term is notable other than one ref. to one film. NawlinWiki 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - as neologism per nom. I enjoy Nawlin's description of the article "sometimes people in bars fight each other with broken glass". Maybe leave as stub with that as the only content? <--joke. Wickethewok 20:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No vote - Per new sources, though it may still be just a dicdef. Wickethewok 18:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep it's a notable term and activity outside of Trainspotting. The article is gash though. Artw 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I've heard the phrase used (in the UK) for quite some time (even before Trainspotting, to which the article refers), so I don't think it qualifies as a protologism or even a neologism there. The trouble is finding a reliable source for it - there's no such definition in the OED's entry on "glass", and I'm not sure of Wikipedia's policies on slang terms and how to reference them. As slang goes it may be quite localised, probably not a term that's well-known outside the UK. Nevertheless, the article is a bit of mess, and I can't see it becoming much more than a dicdef, so move to Wikitionary only if a good source can be located, otherwise weak delete. ~ Matticus  T C 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: why do we need sources other than the one the article already provides? Does the term's use in a well-known work of literature, which was widely praised for its accurate portrayal of the vernacular, not count as a reliable source for its existence as a slang term? All that's really missing is page references. That notwithstanding, the dicdef issue remains, and I'm not sure I can think of much else to say about it either... — Haeleth Talk 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and a movie that simply uses a word in its dialogue is not a source for the concept that the word denotes. A reliable source for this article would describe what glassing actually is and discuss the concept. A quotation is not a reference. Quotations showing a word in use are what Wiktionary articles require. References describing concepts are what Wikipedia articles require. Uncle G 00:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Various conjugations of the verb "to glass" have this meaning in the UK. Quite well known and certainly not a neologism. Still, basically a dicdef. See, for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/rsod/stories/1.shtml http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=9792006 http://www.wonkette.com/politics/party-crash/team-party-crash-national-press-foundation-awards-dinner-156758.php -- GWO
    • Good work on that research there, GWO. Those really strengthen the case for keeping the article. If someone can use these to expand the article into describing the problem, talking about the steps taken by bars, event organisers, etc. to avoid them and so on, it'll become more than a dicdef too. ~ Matticus  T C 16:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I echo that praise. There's also http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/64394-print.shtml . Given these sources, which discuss glassing and the political issues surrounding it, it appears that this article can be edited into a proper, referenced, article on the subject that can be more than a perpetual stub. Please put all of the sources that you have found into the article so that editors can use them to expand and clean up the article. Keep. Uncle G 11:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as neologism. Massmato 16:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think that word means what you think it means -- GWO
  • Keep Its a fairly well known term in the UK, and as Uncle G says, there should be enough information to turn this into a proper referenced article. I seem to remember the Manchester Evening News running a campaign to change the type of glass used in pubs and nightclubs following a series of such incidents. Oldelpaso 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I've done a slight expansion and added a couple of refs. Oldelpaso 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Transforming “victimhood” to peacemaking agencies

I incorrectly marked this as a speedy delete for Original Research (thanks OwenX!), so I bring this here. This is an essay, original research and I suspect a possible copyvio. Wildthing61476 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom. Owen× ☎ 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Fabricationary 20:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, who could also have added "opinion piece" to the list. Agent 86 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment did I forget to mention POV article? :) Wildthing61476 21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - it's even signed by it's author. Artw 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I strongly suspect this is a copyvio, as the author's name doesn't match username, but I couldn't find this thing with a few moments of googling. Might have been copied off of a print source. It's not encyclopedia material at all, though... -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 12:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The authors name certainly doesnt match the username, because the two are entirely different. If you had taken the trouble of actually contacting either the author or hte username, you would realize that I (dipenda) am the Director, Programs at the Alliance for Peace-Nepal, and that we are working to enable and empower the youth in Nepal. One of the things we do is write up articles, and try and publicize it. If writing our own articles and submitting them to various websites constitutes a violation of copyright laws, then perhaps i need to study copyright laws properly. Sorry if thats the case. dipenda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by dipenda ( talk • contribs) .
    • Sorry, we tend to be very paranoid what comes to copyright and licencing, and I for one had no idea and you have to admit the name didn't look like an acronym or anything, and you didn't even have an user page. (Organisations rarely just walk up and contribute something. Usually, when you see a copy-paste posting like this, it's more likely to be work of a random, unrelated, well-intentioned party who isn't aware of Wikipedia's licencing issues.) So apologies. Either way, there's possibility of copyright violation here, still: You're merely the publisher, not the author; has the author assigned the copyright of the article to you? If not, I sure hope they're aware of the fact that their work is distributed under GFDL, know exactly what it means, and they approve of it. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 13:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Green Kovai Movement

Advertisement for a course in India. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 CSD G4 repost. Kimchi.sg 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

IBM Korea

Recreation of Hankook IBM, which was deleted (See: log.) - Slo-mo 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - recreation of deleted content (db-repost). Fabricationary 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Simple coffee

Spam for a company that is not even trading yet Nuttah68 20:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong delete I originally posted the NPOV tag, but seeing as the article has not been cleaned up I agree per nom. Spam flavored coffee, eww... Wildthing61476 20:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. -- M e rovingian ( T, C, @) 20:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. JianLi 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Mystache 00:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Trance Emerson

I don't see any assertion of notability in this long article about a trance musician. Speedy tag removed w/o explanation. NawlinWiki 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Seems like a definite vanity article...just look at the edit history. I'll pu the speedy tag back up. JianLi 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rje 23:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of World War II books

An unmaintainable and most probably never complete list Nuttah68 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. JianLi 20:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Historiography of World War II (which needs as much material as it can get its hands on at the moment). Kirill Lokshin 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and pretty much the same reasons I gave in List of songs about World War II, above. Agent 86 21:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Possibly this would work as a category? Artw 21:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — There's a vast body of literary work relating to this war, so I think, per Artw, that this would work better as a category. — RJH ( talk) 18:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I support Artw's suggestion of category creation instead. Ifnord 16:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 11:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Chess and music

This article is poorly conceived and written. It is not clear, whether in the title or the body, if it is about chess players who enjoy music, musicians who enjoy chess, or both. JianLi 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Chess players have a lot of different preferences. That doesn't mean an article should be created for each one of them. Any personal preferences of players could be added in the players article itself-- Ageo020 20:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, otherwise we are on the path to all kinds of listcruft sillyness. Artw 21:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a totally arbitrary topic. SubSeven 22:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for unanimous deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 {{ Widirect}}. - brenneman {L} 06:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Bags

Wikipedia is not a Wikitionary - Ratarsed 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to wiktionary. Pls note, there is no need to list this on AfD, just redirect it. Plus, who knows, maybe someone will make it into something encyclopedic one day, like backpack. Themindset 20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. We can't do interwiki redirects on things like this. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think the Australian/NZ usage is interesting if it can be verified. Irongargoyle 22:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If you are interested in usages of words, then you are a lexicographer, and Wiktionary will welcome you. Wiktionary takes all of the word usage information that people have. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionary articles are about words. An encyclopaedia article would be about a person, place, concept, event, or thing. Please name the person, place, concept, event, or thing that this article is about. Uncle G 00:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'm relatively sure it's used in some parts of the UK, too, although actually verifying it is beyond me, unless "my brother uses it all the time" counts :P BigHaz 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I recall its use in the UK when I was a kid 50 odd years ago. -- Bduke 06:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I can confirm that it is used in Australia as claimed. The Macquarie Dictionary defines it as "--verb (t) (bagsed, bagsing)

(usually in children's speech) to make a claim for: I bags sitting on the outside. Also, Especially Qld, bar. [third person singular of BAG to put into a bag (as of a hunting trophy), used for all persons]" I bags suggesting that we can transwiki it. Capitalistroadster 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 all. Mailer Diablo 21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The Quantum Repairmen, Stupid Artistic Bastard, Astronauts (album)

Notability in question. ghits: [27] -- NMChico24 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete all Absolutely no notability is asserted, partly because there's no notability to be found. Albums by non-notable artists are rarely, if ever, notable, and these albums (a demo and an EP) don't assert any added significance of any kind. -- Kicking222 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I agree, however the Admin who reviewed the speedy that I initally placed on the article felt that "notability clearly asserted. doesn't qualify for CSD." So, here we are. Thanks for your input! -- NMChico24 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all - Band does not meet WP:MUSIC - Touring only in Virginia (according to their website), and their label appears to only have one other band. -- Joelmills 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 19:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Labour Studies Student Association

Seems like a non notable student organisation. — Fire Fox 20:56, 21 July '06

  • Delete per nom. And if we allow this one, millions of other nn societies will want pages. -- Steel 23:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is nothing notable here -- Alias Flood 00:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, most student orgs aren't notable. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

City Limits

Page was originally delete as a non-notable Flash animation. Current page is for a "show about four friends living on the outskirts of the same city. There is basically no chance of this show ever becoming any kind of show." Need I continue with the nomination? No Google hits, no info of this being legitimate. Wildthing61476 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Backstab

Speedied as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is not sufficient grounds for a speedy delete, so bringing to AfD for consensus.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, and it's not even worth a merge into a gaming jargon article. The author claims it is a 'term coined in multiplayer games' but the application of the term as described in gaming is no different than the normal definition of the word. SubSeven 22:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per both above. -- Steel 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Ratarsed 17:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for unanimous deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Azdrubal Fontes Bayardo

A Formula One driver who never qualified for a race and didn't even register a time in the one race he tried to quallify for - non-notable Robertsteadman 21:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - this wasn't his only race by any means - just his only Championship Grand Prix. That's the problem with a lot of these articles - they suggest that a driver only raced in F1, which is never the reality. AFB almost certainly took part in other Grand Prix and many other types of race as well. It's just a matter of finding out what else he did. He would never have made it as far as a Championship Grand Prix without achieving at least a reasonable amount elsewhere. We need someone with some time to exapnd the article, not delete it. Bretonbanquet 21:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the article has existed for well over a year - there's been plenty of time and there seems to be no other info available - back then some "rickh kids" simply bought their way to car seats.... maybe he didn't do anything else. Anywa, with no evidence, no achievement and over a year for the article to expand..... Robertsteadman 11:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete Easily fails WP:BIO's criteria for sportspeople. A Google search of "Azdrubal Fontes Bayardo" brings up less than 10 unique results; of these, half are from WP and mirrors, and the other half list his name and nothing more. Thus, there is no verifiable information about him, so even if he did race in other circuits, there's no way he was notable enough (or, if he was, no way to prove it) to merit inclusion in WP. -- Kicking222 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, after just a minute or two on Google, I have found several things about him, such as the fact that he won the first race at El Pinar in Montevideo, in a Maserati 4CLT-Chevrolet. His middle name was Esteban, he apparently died just recently on July 9, and his nickname was Pocho. Just skipping over some South American sites, I can see a few results for him. When you Google, you do clearly have to bear in mind that people's names can be mispelt, particularly in this guy's case - and his surname 'Fontes' is often mistaken for a middle name. Rather than making assumptions about his career that you weren't able to confirm, leave this article for a while so that it can be expanded. I have flagged it on the Project page, so someone (or I can do it myself when I have time) will come and put some flesh on the bones. Bretonbanquet 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you could provide links to these articles? As for leaving it a while - it has had well over a year. Robertsteadman 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, it's had over a year, but there are a lot of driver articles out there that need work, and as you have seen, Fontes Bayardo isn't the easiest to research. I know you're just gagging to delete it, but rest assured there is more information out there if you know how to look for it properly. In order to defeat the fatwa on this article, I will attempt to expand it today. Bretonbanquet 17:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Even with more information he is still non-notable and does not meet the criteria fro inclusion. Robertsteadman 18:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, you'd better start deleting the other dozens and dozens of similarly notable or non-notable racing drivers then. What has made you judge Fontes Bayardo to be non-notable? There's nothing in WP:BIO which suggests he's non-notable, having competed in motor racing at the highest level in South America during the 1950s. Bretonbanquet 19:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree -there is much to delete on WP because some fanatics have added it but these articles do not meet notability levels - I'm sure their mums are proud but that's about it. Robertsteadman 19:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Instead of being flippant, why don't you actually explain why you have decided that Fontes Bayardo is not notable? He has won Formula 1 races in South America - he is notable. I see that college football players who haven't actually played for their team are notable - is this some kind of bad joke? Bretonbanquet 19:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I appreciate that to non-followers of motorsport, Bayardo may seem too obscure but I'm afraid that not being able to appreciate the importance of his exploits shouldn't be a reason for deleting the article. The South American racing scene at the time was thriving and was almost as important as the European scene. A driver who did well in the South American formulae therefore cannot be ignored simply because he was a 'rich kid' or because he doesn't appear in a lot of english language websites. Personally I find wikipedia is enjoyable BECAUSE of articles like this which educate and inform, instead of the usual tittle tattle about obscure local 'celebrities' that others deem worthy of gracing the internet. I do agree however that the article ought to be expanded a little more. Type-R 00:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep At least as notable as the many NCAA athletes that pass SPORTS_BIO due to wikipedia's pro-US-college sports bias. -- GWO
Surely that's a reason to delete them as well as this rather than fill up WP with non-notables? ;-) Robertsteadman 08:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, yes. But WP:BIO is policy, so the least we can do is apply that policy even-handedly w.r.t. people with the affrontery not to be Americans. -- GWO
Comment - I have expanded this article a little more, to include AFB's two race wins at the highest level of South American motor racing. This alone is enough to merit his inclusion. Bretonbanquet 12:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Measurements of "notability" by things like Google are practically irrelevant here. An American football player could be 'linked' to the New England Patriots and suddenly there are 1000s of articles about him on the internet. Had Bayardo been racing today, there would most likely be 100s of articles on the internet about him too. This does not make him less notable, just because the internet was not around at that time for thousands of amateur experts or news writers to write about his latest performance. Winning the aforementioned races is huge compared to the notability claims of a Doctor Who villain who appeared in one series, or a footballer who made 2 appearances for Arsenal and then went out on loan, but these produce 2,900 and 46,200 Google hits respectively. Deleting this article would be showing blatant bias to those living in the time of the internet, where the slightest newsworthy piece of information produces dozens and dozens of webpages. [/end rant, I hope you get my point] – AlbinoMonkey ( Talk) 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Any idea how few Uruguayan drivers made it even this close to F1?! Uruguay being one of the poorer relations in the South American motor racing scene. A scene which stands in a similar relationship to Europe as it does in Soccer (no, I don't normally call it that, but I'm guessing that link is at least unambiguous!) - i.e. pretty important. Albinomonkey also makes an excellent point regarding 'Internet bias'. I also note that WP:BIO is explicitly not policy. I wouldn't personally have an objection to some of these drivers being grouped into larger articles though - Uruguyan Racing Drivers if anyone wants to put the work in on the redirects, but I know some others have different views on that. 4u1e 18:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Steven Rohde

Probable non-notable person, but ~500 google hits. I might be missing something obvious here though. — Fire Fox 21:14, 21 July '06

  • Delete. It's just nonsense. He founded Rhode Island? No. Fan-1967 21:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Obvious vanity/patent nonsense. User's only contribution. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Fan-1967. -- Steel 23:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The MBADiversity Organization

Reads like an advertisement/vanity. If you check the edit history, it has been created by a user of the same name. JianLi 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Bobiwan

PROD removed without discussion. Does not assert or seem to meet WP:WEB. -- W.marsh 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, does not appear to be a website that uniquely differenciates itself from other sites, and does not meet WP:WEB. Yank sox 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A site started this year, which is hosted on a free web space provider, with only one relevant GHit in the top 100 (and not the site itself, I might add). Definately doesn't pass WP:WEB there. ~ Matticus  T C 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. By a long way. Just zis Guy you know? 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion of all related articles. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Nj auto insurance

Author has created numerous pages with the same information, all spam to his website. Prod removed by author, and author has been warned about spam. Wildthing61476 21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Additional pages are
Car part
Car forum
Car questions
Auto repair advice Wildthing61476 21:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as spam. Possibly speedy? Artw 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Can't figure why these aren't {{db}} as linkspam... -- Ssbohio 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • (Speedy) delete all per nom. -- Bigtop ( tk| cb| em| ea) 22:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete all per nom. east . 718 22:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete all per above. -- Steel 23:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete all, although some of those might be reasonable redirects to various legitimate articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Blackarms studios

PROD removed without discussion. Article about a website/forum. Does not assert or seem to meet WP:WEB.

  • Delete - It's probably more of organisation than a website, but it still fails notability. Artw 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not notable -- Whpq 00:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 tagged as copyvio and sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Ifnord 05:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Layered double hydroxides

I'm sure this is a copyright violation, but I don't have the source to take it to WP:CP. In addition to the usual red flags, the original version of the article refers to "Figure 1.7", "Figure 1.8", "Section 1.5.1", and "Section 1.4.5", strongly suggesting that it was copied from a larger work. Melchoir 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: The copy vio is from the Journal of Materials Chemistry, see this page. I'll tag it as copyvio. Ifnord 03:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks! Are we supposed to close the AfD now, or what? Melchoir 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Roy A. A. 19:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Core values

This article is a mess! It reads like a business seminar, and is devoid of any salvegeable information. On top of that, it might be in violation of copyright. JianLi 22:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - if you check the references cited, you will indeed find that it is indeed a copyright violation as it is an almost word for word copy with only slight cosmetic text modifications. And in any case, there's already some similar information in strategic planning. -- Whpq 00:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
So in the case of copyright violation, should this be moved to speedy deletion? JianLi 04:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 11:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

South Portland Sewing Centre

De-prod by page's creator. There was some effort to eliminate the spam aspect, but I still don't think this meets WP:CORP, NN Local business/vanity Irongargoyle 22:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As the nominator says, it fails WP:CORP. It seems to be a very localized business. The article was probably created by an employee or owner. This possibility seems exceedingly likely after reading the first revision. Srose (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom -- Alias Flood 00:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 21:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of free software authors

No references cited; list is populated by non-noteworthy people, judging from redlinks; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information JianLi 22:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:NOT. Might be okay as a category, but not as a list. -- Alan Au 00:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Listcruft. Ifnord 03:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Alan Au. -- H·G ( words/ works) 05:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Categorise those famous enough: Linus, RMS, etc. -- GWO
  • Strong Keep' -- Vergardio 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 PENDING. This won't be an easy close, so I'm going to spend some time reading and marking any comments I disregarded. I'm just tagging this for now so it doesn't change while I'm deciding. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The result was DELETE. This entire page hinges on one source, and it has been established to my satisfaction that that one source isn't describing a settlement, but instead an arbitrary point. Should someone discover a reliable source independent of Fallingrain that establishes that this is a settlement instead of an arbitrary location, this article could be recreated. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Gnaa, Nigeria

Article has no evidence of the subject's existence, neither does any Google search Shadow1 23:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong delete This article was created by a troll account. It has no references outside of GNAA press statements, a dubious geography website backed by "Falling Rain Genomics" (note the similarity to the GNAA press release regarding creating people from spare nig___ parts) and another website which says that you can't trust it. This is crap and ridiculous that it has survived two already. — WAvegetarian• (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: If llywrch says it is trustworthy I'll go with that, but they likely didn't go to those coordinates and ask the locals what they call the place. Hyperbole? Yes, but my point is that they would have had to get it from some other reliable source. — WAvegetarian• (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 'Strong keep'neutral for now Article asserts existence and Google confirms - see e.g. the link in the article itself. Dlyons493 Talk 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Umm, see the objections raised about that link. Please explain why that link and another sketchy site that probably copied the info are the only places in the entirety of cyberspace that mention this place outside of GNAA press releases. — WAvegetarian• (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Hadn't realised there's a history to this one! I've used the site in the article before and found it OK, also did a fairly cursory Google and found it on [28]. Will research a bit more before deciding. Can someone add links to previous two AfD's please.
Weak keep The tutiempo site doesn't count as independent confirmation - it just mirrors fallingrain in some way as far as I can see. Still NGA does have it also so, while that's not infallible, the balance of probablility is that the place does exist (in some fashion). Dlyons493 Talk
  • Strong delete per WAvegetarian Jibbles | Talk 23:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Cheerfully speedy delete Weary, very weak keep with a strong desire to revisit in 2 months -- and then drive a stake through its heart. If you look at the last AfD, nobody fought harder to get this non-notable hoax deleted. I'm just not comfortable re-AfD'ing right away. Somehow it seems like maybe it's against the rules. Talk me out of this notion and I'll be at the head of the "speedy delete" line. In the meantime, feel free to look at all the links I produced on the last AfD. See the links I've added later in this RfA. Whatever the concerns about fallingrain.com, the NGA link convinced me that there really is a clearing or rock in Nigeria with that name. But then again, see what else I dug up about NGA names -- they list every possible name there's ever been including mountains, 829 undersea features and 8 different "places" in the Vatican. I may be in Makurdi in 2-3 weeks; I wish I had time to drive by those coordinates and take a picture of the squash field or whatever's there -- it won't be a town! Oh, and this time around ,let's invite some of Wikipedia's Nigerian editors to look at this.-- A. B. 23:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I left a non-committal (hopefully NPOV) notices on the Africa-related regional notice board and several Nigerians' talk pages advising them of the AfD
  • Weak delete - as far as I can see the original was a redirect to the GNAA page, Freakofnurture (who doesn't appear to be a troll unless we are voting them in as admins) created the Nigeria stub later, but... since the only mainspace link to it is from the GNAA page, it has no references so fails WP:OR, and is a non-notable stub, I say even if it's true, it's not necessary. Yomangani 23:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Bigtop ( tk| cb| em| ea) 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If it can't be verified in a reliable source (and so far, it can't), we're better off without it. - Nunh-huh 00:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Nunh-huh's rationale. If the info could truly be verified, it would be a different story. But since there's no proof this place exists, we should just get rid of its article.
  • Delete. The map source shows that such a place exists, but not all places are notable. Those maps show even villages that are notable only to the three people who live in them. -- Ezeu 01:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per WAvegetarian -- gozar 01:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm out on a limb, I realize it. But this website also lists it as a place plus lists nearby cities. It can't be that underpopulated. It also appears on this website. So we have a city that is verifiable; I can't see tossing that without proof of non-notability. I don't think broadband Internet access is that common in that part of the world so I wouldn't use Google hits to show non-notability. Ifnord 02:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment:
  • Delete. A. B. has dug deep on this one, and I can not argue with his knowledge of the area. If he says it's not there then I defer to him. Ifnord 18:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks -- I'm flattered. I actually knew nothing before seeing the name come up in the list of AfDs (the 2nd AfD) a few days ago. I had just received this Nigerian map (for a business trip) the same day and was intrigued to see if I could find it on the map. What I've written on this page represents the sum total of what I know about this area. -- A. B. 19:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is obviously a real place. It can be clearly seen using Google Earth at the co-ordinates indicated in the article, which matches EXACTLY the location listed at Falling Rain Genomics webpage, additionally it can be searched and appears on Mapquest [ [29]] and (strangely enough) appears at the prescribed co-ordinates. It also appears at indexmundi.com [ [30]] How many times does there need to be a discussion? Do we just keep voting until those who want this article deleted get the result they want? The continuing nomination for deletion is almost disruptive. Looking for this city on Google Earth and Mapquest is not exactly time-intensive, nor difficult - the nominators and supporters of deletion of this article should have at least taken the time to verify whether or not this is a real place using these common tools before nominating this article yet again.-- Nicodemus75 02:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment:
Comment/Response I realize that this has been up twice before and only very recently reached no consensus. I was not aware of the article until just recently. And no, I wasn't brought in by someone wishing for it to be deleted. I hate that sometimes the most aggressive side in an argument wins based on tenacity rather than true consensus. I hate seeing AfD abused this way as much as I hate seeing wheel warring. That said, the first AfD resulted in keep because there were places online that mentioned it. The validity of those sources wasn't really brought into question. I read a bunch of stuff on teh interwebs, but I'm not sure where they got their data from. In the second AfD, only one keep was added after the verifiability of the online sources was questioned. The validity was questioned at the end of the discussion. This second discussion seems to have been focussed on a content dispute over whether the GNAA should be mentioned in the article and whether the town was notable apart from that. Obviously a real town in Nigeria is just as notable as the gazillions of U.S. census data articles. This resulted in no consensus. Given that something new was raised at the end and didn't seem to have been addressed, I thought that it was worth talking about. I looked at Google Earth well before this nomination occurred and saw that indeed that area of Nigeria is used for agriculture. There are fields and forest there, but I don't see anything that would have a population of 6000+. Given how close by all the "towns" listed on the nona site are, the population density would have to be pretty high to get that many people before crossing the municipality boundary. Index Mundi != Google Earth. It is a data overlay over satellite images. If you had actually searched using Google Earth, as you incivilly implied I hadn't, you would find that it points to the Free Software Foundation in Boston. You can use Google Maps to search for Gnaa, Nigeria and return the same result. I don't feel this is disruptive any more than deletion review is. I have no intention of nomming this again. The only thing that seems obvious to me about this whole episode is that the GNAA is having fun with it, people are upset that we might be furthering systemic bias, and we really don't seem to have a good way of determining what's actually out there other than personal interpretation of low resolution satellite images from Google. My last comment goes back to Nicodemus75's assumptions. Neither the nominator nor I, the first commenter, were involved in either of the first two AfDs. Please don't imply that we are repeatedly abusing process to get our way. — WAvegetarian• (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment'. This article has twice been nominated for deletion, this nomination (3rd) was ONE DAY following the previous attempt which was 5 delete votes versus 9 keep votes which is BARELY a lack of consensus (some admins consider such a discussion result to be a consensus to keep). Your protestations and defenses notwithstanding, please refer to Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Renominations_and_recurring_candidates where it clearly states: A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion (if kept) or re-created (if deleted). With respect to the verifiability of this place, please see WP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. There are PLENTY of online sources including respected atlases that list this town as a real place. It is not our job to get at the truth of whether or not Mapquest or other online atlases have it right, as clearly stated: "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. Attempts to deconstruct these online atlases are beyond the scope of purpose here. This location is verifiable under the terms of the policy established at WP:V. The IMMEDIATE renomination of this article to AfD after a previous attempt to delete it had failed is a violation of policy. While I am certainly prepared to AGF, I find it a little hard to believe that Shadow1 had absolutely no idea that this article had been closed and failed to be deleted THE PREVIOUS DAY to his nomination. -- Nicodemus75 19:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment It's likely that all these sites are working from a common source - which might be wrong. Still, as I said above the balance of probablility is that the place does exist. Certainly, one shouldn't delete because of a possible database error. There is also the notability question - but wiki has a strong tradition that settlements are intriniscally notable and NGA lists it as a populated place. Again NGA might be wrong but one shouldn't delete because of a possible database error. Dlyons493 Talk 02:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: It's not "obviously a real place". It's a place for the existence of which we have no non-Internet evidence. What's needed is a real reference, something printed on a dead tree, in a nice binding, not a website. And a citation for the population of > 6000 (the actual reason it would be notable) is also quite starkly missing. - Nunh-huh 04:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm sorry that people are offended by the GNAA's misuse of this placename, but Fallingrain's mention is a sufficiently reliable source for me; I've often used Falling Rain Genomic's webpage to research & confirm information about Ethiopian villages & cities, & I believe that we can trust it as a reliable source. If we are to start deleting placenames in Africa because they are "non-notable", shall we also be fair & start deleting placenames in the US & Europe for the same reason? If you haven't figured it out, the trolls want us to delete this article for their amusement. (Note: in writing that last sentence, I am not calling anyone who argues for a delete here a troll, just saying that they are mistaken about this placename's misuse.) -- llywrch 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Nicodemus75. --Slgr @ndson ( page - messages - contribs) 03:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If llywrch says that Fallinggrain is a reliable site, then it's good. Precedent on Wikipedia clearly indicates that inhabited localities get an article. If a town with 6559 inhabitants (according to the external link) isn't notable, then Rambot needs to remove thousands of locations in the US. - 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments:

  1. "GNAA DOMINATES TROLLYMPICS" ... dateline: "Gnaa, Nigeria".
  2. Google shows no Nigerian' web pages containing the word "gnaa".
  3. Put the coordinates into Google Earth and you end up in the middle of nowhere. Contrary to another editor's comment -- nothing, just fields and forests. No road, no 6500 people.
  4. Put the coordinates on my trusty Nigerian road map and there's not even a dirt road shown. If 6,500 people live there, how does the Guiness truck get in? The map's index lists 1500 towns; Gnaa's not one of them.
  5. Article's creator was Dementedd, see his Article talk page and edit history -- this is not the only GNAA he edits.
  6. The article's first version was a redirect to the Gay Nigger Association of America
  7. Online map of the towns and roads around Awe and Kaor (Kaor is 2 km from the reported location of Gnaa). No Gnaa nowhere.
  8. Comment made by Spacepotato in the last AfD: "The population figure of 6,559 for Gnaa that this article used to have was taken from fallingrain, but this is probably bogus as fallingrain lists the same population figure for Kaor, Nigeria. Gnaa is either an error in the NGA database (which also contains the apparently nonexistent populated place Polfbroekstraat), or a place too small to show up on multimap."
  9. NGA's database contains all features, not just towns; check out the list of place files by country:
  • 8,229 places that are undersea features
  • NGA has 43,342 such "places" in Nigeria, a Texas-sized country -- Do we want 43,342 place articles just for Nigeria? 43,342 articles for Texas? (no Texas jokes, please) note: URL links to NGA's 1.2 Mb zip file
  • 31 places fall within just 10 km (6 miles) of Gnaa's reported location.
  • 8 different places within Vatican City
-- A. B. 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
(Responding to A.B.'s research)
  1. A shocking number of African towns (or large villages, if you will) lack road connections. Or what we outside Africa would call a road.
  2. Maps of African countries are often incorrect. (As an example, one I am using at the moment not only omits a number of villages or towns that the Central Statistical Agency (Ethiopia) mentions, but amazingly divides the Omo River into 2 different rivers.)
  3. Having worked with the NGA database for Ethiopia, I'll freely concede that it has some interesting problems. However, no one has looked in the Nigeria database to determine what the story might be. The NGA records not only list placenames & their longitude & latitudes, but also flag it with such information as the type of place it is (e.g. habitation, locality, building, waterhole) & if it is known by another name. "Gnaa" may simply be an explorer's error for some other placename. (Note: My excuse for not performing this investigation myself because I've been spending the weekend doing some house remodelling in 100-degree heat.)
  4. While an alleged troll created the article, even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn.
I have no horse in this race; with the right kind of arguments, I would be quite willing to change my vote above. My goal is to put only reliable information in Wikipedia. However, in all three deletion nominations, the same arguments & evidence have been repeated. If you want me to persuade me to change my vote, I need to see the following kinds of proof:
  • Has anyone checked the Nigerian government records? Almost every country has a website: even poverty-stricken Ethiopia has an abstract of its statistical information online. I would imagine that the Nigerian census agency has a website, & the necessary information to provide a decisive answer might lie there.
  • Has anyone taken the time to research this matter in a reference library? One of those with lots of printed things called books & periodicals? Excuse my tone, but this reliance on the Internet for facts about Africa is about as useful as relying on the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica for facts about astronomy or physics. My local city library even has a reference line, so you could call & get your answer without even leaving home. (And note: travellers have written books in English about Nigeria for over a century, some of which have been published in Nigeria. I'm curious to know whether any such works that should mention Gnaa do so.)
  • And let me repeat, how about a closer look at the NGA entry. For all we know, the answer may lie in that source. -- llywrch 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
"Populated Place Classification. A graduated numerical scale denoting the relative importance of a populated place. The scale ranges from 1, relatively high, to 5, relatively low. The scale could also include NULL (no value) as a value for populated places with unknown or undetermined classification."
Be sure to take a look, too, at the more detailed data analysis on the [Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gnaa, Nigeria (3rd nomination)|AfD's talk page]. -- A. B. 05:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per A.B's stunning detective work. This seems to be unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 06:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of verifiability. -- Rob 06:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Why are we going around in circles here? While I respect the research that A.B. has done here, it is far too original researchy for my taste. Fallingrain is a reliable source, and unless they personally come forward and say this information is false, I see no reason why this should be deleted. If we axe this, we may as well begin killing off the thousands of RamBot generated articles. A slippery slope we should not go down. P.S.: Has anyone tried contacting Fallingrain regarding this issue? Silensor 07:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The material I provided is not original research, it's encyclopedic. Not every Wikipedian is busy with AfDs, RfAs, ANIs and such; Wikipedia has actually been secretly built by hundreds of other editors beavering away looking this stuff up. Or that's what I thought. Just click on the links I conveniently provided -- go for it, it won't hurt. With one exception, it's all available online and available to any Wikipedian. (Google Earth imagery requires a free software download). The NGA file for each country is downloadable at the link above. The road map is an exception but widely available; (see the talk page for details). If I go to those coordinates next month as threatened -- now that's original research. (But wait -- isn't contacting fallingrain.com as suggested original research also?).-- A. B. 11:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
By the way, while my comments above were in response to Silensor's good faith, reasonable concern, I really meant my sarcasm to be about the whole recurring Gnaa muddle -- the way GNAA has effortlessly managed to get us Wikipedians diligently tying ourselves in a knot with our own processes. My sarcasm was not meant to be about Silensor, but on re-reading, it looks like a dig at Silensor himself. I did not mean it that way. My aplogies. -- A. B. 15:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hoax. No reputable source. -- GWO
  • Delete. Per A.B. Wizzy… ☎ 08:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete, unverifiable hoax. I was fooled during the first AfD, I'm not going to be fooled this time. Also, A. B.'s excellent research is definitely convincing. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I can't see keeping data because of an inaccuracy in a source. One of my old computers had a world map program that came with it. It was very complete as far as locations it could pinpoint, but it also included a latitude and longitude for "Middle of Nowhere" in the Pacific Ocean. Does this mean I can now create an article on the inherently notable city of Middle of Nowhere, Pacific Ocean? GassyGuy 11:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: -- having fun yet? This is the third AfD. Think about it; if you were the other GNAA, wouldn't you enjoy seeing all us nerdy Wikipedians tying ourselves up fretting about all this? It's become a game. So lighten up -- we'll see this come around a few more times (in alternate guises should this third AfD pass). Like vandalism, it's just one another chronic, non-lethal pestulance afflicting Wikipedia. Like our response to vandalism, maybe we need a template; just encapsulate all the WP:NN links above into a new Gnaa template -- {{NoGnaaNowhere}} -- to save time the next time. In the meantime, let's delete this one. Cheers, -- A. B. 12:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Gay Nigger Association of America, obviously. — Jul. 22, '06 [14:41] < freak| talk>
  • Delete. No reputable sources. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Verifiability. Maybe they'll get bored one day... - Mark 15:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No reliable source.-- Aldux 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It is a bit disconcerting that we are so quick to discredit the reputation of this source (fallingrain) entirely. Can someone please explain why GlobeXplorer also provides photographs of one "Gnaa, NG" located at Latitude 8.3, Longitude 9.066599, with poster-size satellite imagery of the location available, dating back to January 1, 1999, half a decade before the Gay Nigger Association of America even existed? Quite a conspiracy we've got going here. Silensor 16:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that it's appropriate to look skeptically at a website that doesn't cite its sources. I don't see that fallingrain has cited its source for the existence of Gnaa. I think it's a bit disconcerting that no one can come up with a non-Internet reference for this supposedly-not-virtual place, or a citation documenting its purported population. - Nunh-huh 17:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: I would love to explain it for you. If you look at that site, you will see that they use Mapquest to generate "matching addresses." Mapquest is not always accurate. Neither is Google Maps which labels a house two blocks away with my address. As for the date, that is the satellite image date. It is not a picture of that town; it is a picture of the region that town is supposedly in. The poster-size imagery is of the region. You will note, if you use Google Earth, that the image is at very low zoom. You could also compare visible roads to the nona map and see that there are around a dozen "towns" supposedly in the original image that comes up. So that's the explanation. It is, just like image mundi, just a data overlay of someone else's location on someone else's image.— WAvegetarian• (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment why can't GNAA be listed for deletion? It's only notable because it's on SlashDot and WikiPedia, and Slashdotters and GNAA members vote to keep it. 132.205.95.44 21:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    18 AfDs to date -- that's pretty amazing.-- A. B. 21:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Also, don't try listing it for deletion - most of those AfDs were speedy keeps resulting from people being too impatient to wait before relisting it on AfD. The rest were because members of the GNAA flooded the AfDs with keep votes. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 23:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per A.B., and as for fallingrain, it's easily misinterpreted as noted above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have posted excerpts from this discussion on the article's talk page for future reference should this AfD fail, primarily regarding the specific references we used and their links. Although the full AfD discussion is archived, I've seen from these AfDs that, in reality, many people don't go back and wade through older discussions.-- A. B. 23:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I want to note that the only "failing" possible would be failing to reach consensus. AfDs resulting in anything else have achieved consensus which is never a failure as that is what our project is based on.— WAvegetarian• (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete per User:A. B.'s evidence. Geni 15:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep and please help reverse systemic bias this is a real place in nigeria Yuckfoo 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Deananoby2 17:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep regardless of how an internet organisation uses the name, the town in Nigeria is still inherently notable. The internet usage is simply an afterthought and trvia within the context of the article about the town. hoopydink Conas tá tú? 19:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Yes, I think there's pretty clear agreement that a town in Nigeria with a population of 6000 would be notable, if it existed, and that the troll club's use of the name is irrelevant to any article that might be written about that town. But the fact is that we cannot verify that the town does, indeed, exist. Since we can't verify it, the article ought to be deleted. If someone eventually finds some solid verification, another article could be written with actual, valid, facts. - Nunh-huh 22:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I figure this solidifies the notion that it does exist. hoopydink Conas tá tú? 22:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It's been established that that site isn't a reliable source. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Could you elaborate on how it was discounted as an unreliable source by a legitimate entity? hoopydink Conas tá tú? 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
All sources contain errors. The fewer the number of sources something can be found in, the more likely it represents an error. A town of 6000 persons ought to be findable in more than one source. - Nunh-huh 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Do you have any reasons to think that the Falling Rain Genomics site is in error? The GlobeXplorer site backs up the information given by the Falling Rain site. Speaking in generalities doesn't add much to the discussion (All sources contain errors). Also, it doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to understand that a small Nigerian town hasn't been heavily documented of yet. hoopydink Conas tá tú? 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
As detailed above, the two sites are not independent. And, yes, you are right, the town's existence hasn't been documented yet. - Nunh-huh 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The notion that it's reasonable to understand why the town hasn't been heavily documented is what I was right about, not that it hasn't been documented. You're a bit off in interpreting my previous statement. hoopydink Conas tá tú? 13:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Fallingrain.com is being misinterpreted; see the talk page: "With just 43 people in Gnaa, who gets to be mayor?" for the calculations.-- A. B. 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Questionable accuracy. If it passes AfD, I'll strip mention of GNAA (the group) from the article anyway. -- Improv 20:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • strong speedy delete enough said MikeMorley 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I just added some data to the talk page regarding NGA's place names and fallingrain.com's data that may shed some light on the question of how to use this stuff:

-- A. B. 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Once again, excellent job on the research. It definitely seems to clear things up and show that Fallingrain.com is indeed not a reliable source. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 06:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
How does that show how Fallingrain.com isn't a reliable source? The issue A.B. is bringing up is that Fallingrain.com is not specifically labeling Gnaa a town, but perhaps a region, territory, or other "place".
  • Weak keep per Hoopydink. 1ne 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: informal tally to date for the closing admin: 23 editors recommend deleting (70%), 9 keeping (27%), 1 merging (3%). There's been so much back and forth my count may be off by one or two. It will certainly change some more.-- A. B. 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Box? Where is this "box" you speak of? - Nunh-huh 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Nicodemus is right about the etiquette when I read it. Technically, my comment isn't in a box but it sure is a tally, so I struck it through. I think a reason for the rule is that unlike RfAs, this is not a vote -- we're just giving recommendations to the one admin who will actually make the real decision. Also, I'm not sure "etiquette" is binding but, heck, if we start ignoring etiquette, Miss Manners will tell you we're on a steep slippery slope from "please" and "thank you" to mobs with pitchforks ... -- A. B. 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep. delete western supremacists. JayW 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

See also

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Mango juice talk 01:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Yuppicide

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 23:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom (fails WP:MUSIC). -- Alan Au 00:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - Four albums with Wreckage Records [31], but I can find little about that label. Best I could find was this [32], which lists some seemingly non-notable bands. Here's a picture possibly showing the band in Germany [33]. No other significant info on Yuppicide found, but I would be willing to change to a keep if some verifiable evidence of touring could be supplied. -- Joelmills 04:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 15:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Renetto

Non-notable Internet persona. Nufy8 23:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - not notable -- Whpq 23:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - An important figure on YouTube that has a great fan base, there's no difference between a Wiki for any celebrity vs. Renetto. --(Unsigned comment by 24.151.80.215 ( talk · contribs))
Comment: User's third edit. The other two were to the article in question. Nufy8 20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - Not of note outside of Youtube. At least not yet. Dave 23:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hope Capital

Contested prod. Blatent advertisement for a 14 month old investment firm that shows no indications of having any independent sources for verifiability (A Google search on the firm name turns up the firm's home page and a plethora of fund raising drives for religious groups). Nothing in the text of the article to indicate the firm meets WP:CORP. In addition, the article was also created by a user with the same name as the business firm's founder so WP:VANITY may also apply. Jester 23:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | reply

As the founder and managing director of the company I'm in the best position to comment about its operations, mission etc.
 :: contact ::
23:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement. Probably copyvio as well. -- Alan Au 00:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 02:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, advert. Jacek Kendysz 01:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion as nn-bio. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Dr. Thomas Robinson

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Is being "a major voice for the reform of the ultra-conservative church of christ" notable enough for inclusion? Medtopic 23:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete unless notability (per claim) can be verified. Otherwise, nn-bio. -- Alan Au 00:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as nn bio. "...established himself as the major voice..." sounds like vanity to me. Ifnord 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of supermodels

Completing an unfinished AfD nomination. The AfD template was added not long after I suggested this very thing on the Supermodel talk page. This list has absolutely no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion of any particular model. In fact, the supermodel article provides little clarity or objectivity as to who or who is not a supermodel (as discussed on its talk page and elsewhere). For those reasons I have no problem completing this nomination and suggesting that it be deleted. Agent 86 23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. listcruft. Mystache 00:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is why categories exist. Medtopic 00:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Categories are worse than lists where the problem is the verifiability or objectivity of the label. At least with a list, you can explain inclusion or cite sources; if a list can't even be fixed by that, a category absolutely should not be created. Postdlf 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. per nom Doc 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Supermodel is an overused hypester term. Piccadilly 17:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I wavered on this for awhile, but I think it's enough to have an article on the term that can discuss its cultural meaning and application. A list designating who is a supermodel is inevitably POV. When that list is qualified as designating those who "have been described" as supermodels, it just becomes a trivial record of media hype. Postdlf 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Postdlf; no chance that such a list would ever be NPOV. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Conditional Delete If no more clearer definition of what qualifies as supermodel emerges at Supermodel which could be applied to this list than delete. If it does, than Categorize Bwithh 07:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete I actually find this page to be useful. The names on the list are who many people, especially those in the industry consider supermodels. For example, the likes of Twiggy, Linda Evangelista, Gisele Bundchen, Gemma Ward, Daria Werbowy, etc.. This page is very useful. Lil Flip246 15:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Could you explain why this list is useful, and how it has been determined that "many people, especially those in the industry" consider those listed to be "supermodels"? Postdlf 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • This list is useful because it shows who the term supermodel was used for. These models have the qualities as those mentioned in the supermodel article. If we don't have this list, people will just name random models supermodels. For example, Rachel Hunter who is NOT a supermodel. Lil Flip246 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Using your example, why not? She's internationally famous, probably has a higher-than-average income, has modelled for Sports Illustrated, Cover Girl, Estee Lauder, Revlon, etc., and has parlayed her modelling into other opportunities in the entertainment industry. As the term "supermodel" is largely made-up, it just shows the problems of trying to have a fixed set of criteria and the inherent subjectivity of the article. Agent 86 17:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • You answered neither of my questions. Why is it useful to show for whom the term "supermodel" has been used? And how have you determined (by what research) that those included in the list have the qualities (which qualities, exactly?) mentioned in the supermodel article, and those not included in the list do not have those qualities? Postdlf 23:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The term "supermodel" is a bit too fuzzy for my taste, and even if it wasn't, this would be better served by catergories anyhow. RFerreira 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete. Those in the list fit the description described in the supermodel page. If we don't include this list, we will have everyone using the term loosely on those who Are Not Supermodels like Rachel Hunter and Caprice Bourret. Lil Flip246 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Lil Flip, please only "vote" once. You've already been corrected once in this regard. If you have further comments to make, please be clear that it is a comment and not a new "vote" (and please be aware this is not a vote, but a discussion regarding consensus: please read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion). As an aside, there is no other way to use the term but loosely, because there is no set definitive criteria for being a supermodel. It's entirely subjective. Agent 86 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The definition and standards of a supermodel are explained in the supermodel page. If we don't have a list of real supermodels, people will continue to use the term loosely on any models like Pamela Anderson. Lil Flip246 18:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Please don't conitnue to just repeat the same things over and over agein to try and have the last word and yet fail to answer direct questions. This is little short of being a troll. Doc 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 14:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Tatum Reed

Article seems to be an ad masquerading as something else. Also not sure of the notability of the entry. Mystache 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Notability not established. -- Alan Au 00:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Looks like spamvertisement to me. Buck ets ofg✐ 00:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete From what I can tell, she doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or the proposed WP:PORN BIO, and her website doesn't meet WP:WEB. Yank sox 14:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can't see why there are any objections to TR's article. She's more about the image than the business and will soon be even more so. All the facts seem meaningful and the info is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.242.54 ( talk • contribs)
  • Do a Google search on Tatum Reed and compare it to the average porn star, she is already notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.24.145 ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion. Merge not deemed necessary. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Global warming consensus

There doesn't seem to be a point to this article &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: There's also nothing that links to it. I think it's a temporary thing, but I can't claim to understand it myself. Friday (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to Global warming. Looks like an attempted POV fork. I doubt there is anything here worth merging which isn't already in the main article.-- Xyzzyplugh 00:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Xyzzyplugh, or if there's anything salvageable (which I doubt), then merge and redirect. -- Alan Au 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect per Xyzzyplugh (merging if appropriate, per Alan) Buck ets ofg✐ 00:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Xyzzyplugh, I don't see anything worth merging. 168.122.228.33 05:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. I don't think a redirect is even necessary. -- H·G ( words/ works) 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without redirect - nothing links to it, and it's an unlikely name to type in. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and do not redirect. Orphaned, pointless article. Unlikely search term. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Deletee — Dunc| ☺ 12:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete WP doesn't determine consensus and any article with that word in the title is by definition unencyclopaedic. Other than that.... overwhelming consensus? hmmmm -- Kalsermar 17:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. per nom. FeloniousMonk 01:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to keep, and redirect as requested. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Dr. Jaishankar Menon

No vote. Not sure about this one. Is being an IBM Fellow notable enough for inclusion? Redirect to Jaishankar Menon if it is a keeper. Medtopic 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Probably deleteKeep. -- Bigtop ( tk| cb| em| ea) 17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. Only potentially notable achievement is awarding of IBM Fellow, suggesting that this entry be merged there if the award itself is notable. Otherwise, delete. -- Alan Au 00:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. Achievements are mentioned, but IMO they are not notable enough. If someone can highlight their importance, I am willing to reconsider my opinion. — Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 10:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep-This article has grown out of stub stage. It lists his various awards, his IBM Fellowship, his important contributions in developing RAID, and his alumnus awards. This has got to be a keeper! Article has also been updated since votes were tallied, take a look at new version and reconsider. Reppin the bay 02:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep-I think being one of only 65 active IBM Fellows is enough by itself to call for the keeping of this article...I guess, yeah, being an IBM Fellow IMO, IS notable enough for inclusion 49ers14 14:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. IBM fellow or not, the list of awards and accomplishments make this a keeper. RFerreira 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable and accomplished. Aye-Aye 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_21&oldid=1081095802"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 20 July 22 >

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 Withdrawn by nominator, conditional on cleanup. After looking at the debate at Mega, and the deletion review, I am conditionally withdrawing this nomination, with the idea that in the very near future it is both expanded and more properly sourced. As the article stands now, it should fail; however, in my opinion, for whatever that is worth, there seems to be enough behind this person that would allow someone with a better knowledge of his history and what he means to the High-IQ world to put together an article worthy of Wikipedia. If that is not done, then this article should end up here again. – Avi 06:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ronald K. Hoeflin

Seems to fail notability. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society -- Avi 07:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: please note presence of following single-purpose accounts here: May-Tzu, SOUTH, Sol.delune, TKRIB, Aye-Aye. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Odd that you didn't mention the other new users Byrgenwulf, DaturaS, Massmato; Could there be a deletionist agenda here? -- Michael C. Price talk 05:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete probable vanity, definitely not very notable as it stands. Byrgenwulf 11:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Byrgenwulf as nn vanity. Buck ets ofg✐ 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Brian 64.12.116.65 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Dr Hoeflin is indeed notable. He has been written up in various books, mainstream magazines, and has also been the subject of television interviews. He is one of the pioneers of high-end psychometrics. He was the first -- or perhaps second -- person to create an IQ test that would reliably measure IQ above 3 standard deviations above the norm. These tests were carefully and extensively normed and received widespread media attention. This is especially important because in the area of very high-range psychometrics -- which can perhaps shed much insight into the nature of minds and IQ in general -- there is virtually no-one at work.

    For the past ten years, he has been at work writing a book which selectively filters and organizes philosophical concepts. The first two volumes of this book, "Encyclopedia of Categories", have been published. They are almost 700 pages each, and contain much original and noteworthy thought.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.65 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 15:30:48I have just created a user account. Brian Promking 15:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

    • If that is true, then you should be able to provide us with source citations for those books and magazine articles. As things stand, you have cited no sources and the article cites no sources. Uncle G 18:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
There is a long account of an interview with Dr Hoeflin in "The Know-it-all", a book published by Simon & Schuster in 2004, which was widely reviewed, as I recall. A one-page excerpt is here: http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0743250605&id=lveguMcFrokC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=%22prometheus+society%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=IhkW8XKtUsVh5K-bxdcpWCykR2s Promking 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Dr. Hoeflin has been a biographee in Marquis *Who's Who In the World* and Marquis *Who's Who In America* for many years. May-Tzu — Preceding unsigned comment added by May-Tzu ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn self-published DaturaS 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep What's the point of an open-source encyclopaedia (so to speak), if it's also open-source-delete? You can extend and delete everything there is, as I'm sure you'd find suitable objectors to almost everything there is. Beyond deleting obscenities, what's the use of deletion? Saving something? What exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.181.101 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 13:21
  • Keep But DELETION will doubtless be done, and by some hip-hop high school student who has been a sysop for a few months. Here is the State of Wiki re deletions: "Despite excellent efforts put forth by many of you (and I thank you for the help), the Mega Society article has been deleted. I see that the Hoeflin article has also now been nominated for deletion, and I suspect that this is suggestive of a trend. Coincidentally I was talking with Stephen Wolfram a month or two ago and he commented that he had noted that Wikipedia articles were actually growing shorter on average. When one reads "deletionist" credo on Wikipedia, the main reason given for deleting articles is that too many articles tend to junk up lists. In other words, the world is too complex to fit into a neat categorization, so let's just prune the world to fit. This is reminiscent of attempts to "reform" language. In the end the reason given for deleting the Mega Society entry was that people had never heard of it. So slowly Wikipedia is regressing to the mean, which is something like an eighth grade reading level." Perhaps everything be deleted except of course any hip hop articles. And this must be done ASAP obviously, to protect the Wiki notability. SOUTH 18:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Excessive new lines removed. Kimchi.sg 19:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
While I understand your frustration, your blanket charecterizations of all sysops as teenage hip-hop aficianados is insulting, immature, and patently false. I also note from my associations with various High-IQ societies that there is often a correlation between their members and an inflated sense of self. Not all of us whom G-d has blessed with IQ's significantly above 150 need to broadcast it to the world and preen. Anyway, innate intelligence is more often a gift (although honed and sharpened by use) and not something we should use to foster a sense of superiority. Au contraire, it should engender humility. That being said, we have standards. For better or for worse, and in this I mourn our society's fall with you, hoi polloi have ascribed a noteriety and notability to people with the ability to run together monosyllabic, mispronounced, bastardized words to some rhythmic structure, and shower them with money and fame. Is it something we should be proud of? No. At this point in history, does that phenomenon exist? Yes. I daresay that the author in question here would be recognized less, be it his work, his appearance, or any other element, than the #500 rapper on some chart. He fails notability in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others. Is this “fair”? Doubtful, but it is the case. Also, my personal opinion is that Mensa is notable for its size and its scope, regardless of the immaturity of many of its individual members. Mega, Giga, Promethues, and the like have nowhere near the membership, name recognition, world-wide dispersion, or influence of Mensa, and all of them, as they stand now, likely fail our standards. -- Avi 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Thank you Avi. I couldn't have put it better myself, and what you said echoes my sentiments exactly. I would just like to add that I would love to know where that bit that SOUTH quoted came from, since it seems like a message sent out to solicity "meatpuppetry". Byrgenwulf 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The mere existence of a single-member IQ society where the member has an IQ of, say, 250 (even as measured as a child) would be highly notable. And how else would such a society gain recognition (as if it needs it to be worthy of note) if encyclopedias summarily dismiss it? (BTW, I was not calling all admins "hip hop kids.") SOUTH 19:31, 21 July 2006
  • Perhaps looking up the meaning of the word society could clear some things up here. There is no such thing as a "one member society". A person with the highest ever recorded IQ might warrant inclusion (I don't see anyone wanting to get rid of vos Savant, for example) but that example is ridiculous. Byrgenwulf 19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
If it were notable, let someone else write about the organisation first. We are not, and cannot, be the first to report the existance of any organisation or notable person; that is the job of the newspaper or magazine, not the encyclopedia. Kimchi.sg 19:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Some people have written about the organisation first. I'd show Kimchi.sg the refs but some teenage hip-hop sysop has deleted them!! -- Michael C. Price talk 21:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
You've helped author articles about a fishing area in Singapore, and various roads there, and another contributor wrote articles about various small state roads in Washington State. I'm sure that there are far better fishing areas to be found elsewhere in South Asia, and here in the US as well. So why is yours notable? Asked not out of disrespect but to learn. Brian 64.12.116.65 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Yes, but this article seems to disscuss an subject of importance —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 18:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep
1) The issue of "junking up lists" seems of little relevance on the internet, where one doesn't have to worry about huge printing costs, huge volumes of paper, etc. One could look at the internet as an electronic junkpile or treasure trove (dependig on one's perspective) of lists - i.e. "links" allowing readers to follow webs of association as far as they want.
2) Proponents of "delete" cite issues of "notability", a term which has also been acknowledged to be ill-defined, its interpretations subject to the biases/whims of the writer or judge.
2a) Often, the ostensible (surface) motivation behind a decision is merely a mask, hiding deeper, truer motivations. This leads to isues of "political Correctness". Our society has indoctrinated us to believe in PCness as a virtue and means towards ultimately greater tolerance and humanity; doubters have been coerced into publically pretending belief in the creed. The underlying dogma - that we really are *fundamentally* equal (vs. "equal in legal rights") assuages many people's fears. We all know that some people currently seem smarter and/or more talented than us; at the same time, a part of us fights against acknowledging that levels of ability in some areas may be largely innate. We can save face when looking in the miror by saying "He and I are innately equal; he merely benefited by more opportunities, lucked out in the crap shoot of life."
Persons and groups whose existence and/or work threatens the ego-massaging opiate of PCness are due for deletion. Obviously, giants such as Jenson (with lists of respected books and articles in major professional journals) can't be deleted - at least not yet.....but one can start with lesser-known workers of a similarly threatening mindset (ie. those who would haul all the Procrustean beds to the l of invalid ideas). Sol.delune 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)sol.delune reply
Comment: This user tried to remove prior comments from this AfD. This is his 8th edit; the account was registered 4 days ago and has only edited in this AfD and the Mega Society AfD. Kimchi.sg 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment 2: Excessive line breaks and spacing removed for clarity. Kimchi.sg 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - many claims but all unsourced, fails our key test of verifiability. Kimchi.sg 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V, unless properly sourced. Dpv 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: How is Hoeflin less "notable" than the Miami Beach Senior High School - just one of many urban high schools with the list of celebrity grads (scattered over decades) that one would expect from many large, urban schools? Is Wikipedia "cluttered" with info on the thousands of urban high schools in this country - most of which are of interest only to their students, staff and alumni? Does such information possess the potential scientific or cultural importance that would render it valid as "encyclopedia material"? Hoeflin's work, although perhaps known by few, at least has import to scholars investigating high-end psychometrics (whether or not they agree with his findings, the findings themselves may have seminal value.) Sol.delune 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)sol.delune reply
Comment: Excessive newlines removed, again. Please don't hit Enter at the end of every line; the words will wrap automatically at the end of a line, unlike typewriter style; also, do start your comments the same way as everyone else. Not starting your comments following convention is flaunting your newbie status. Kimchi.sg 21:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
"Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers" --= Jimbo Wales. Brian 70.234.150.40 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Newcomers need to learn the conventions here as well. Teaching others is not equivalent to bullying. Kimchi.sg 04:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per eagle and this [1] article. Themindset 21:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I would say more if I thought the decision would be based the merits of the discussion rather than just a headcount, but since it seems such judgements are just votes it seems pointless to debate more. -- Michael C. Price talk 11:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I see that the "notable" initiator of recent IQ related deletes Byrgenwulf is himself a member of the Brights with an elaborated entry in Wiki, as well as one for almost each "notable" member of the Brights, among whome even a certain Teller the Magician. Now, how would it be to cut the crap, and move on to deleting his beloved articles straight away. I mean, I can do it on my own, just substitute the content with whatever. Perhaps people like Byrgenwulf can realize their own actions only when being subject to an equal themselves. Stevan Damjanovic
Stevan, anything you say as an anon will be ignored if the closing admin follows the Mega Society's deletion process of just counting the non-anon votes. Of course head counting itself at the end of an AfD is a clear violation of Wiki policy -- but it seems an established illegal practice. I am going to take things to a higher level, but in the meantime I strongly urge you to create a user account and talk page. Byrgenwulf is a menance to Wikipedia and needs banning before he does any further damage as the self-styled leader of the anti-IQ Jihad -- you can be most effective in restoring sanity by completing the login and registration process yourself. -- Michael C. Price talk 14:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-styled leader of the anti-IQ Jihad?!? Mr Price, please substantiate that accusation. I think the user you are addressing in the message above is a far greater menace than I, looking at the vandalism/"experimenting" he has just performed on an article (see below). I'm not an anti-IQ Jihad -indeed, the more I think about it, the more I would like to see an article on high IQ subculture; I merely do not wish to see Wikipedia abused as a repository for arbitrary information. And I certainly don't think I need to be banned. I have done nothing wrong! This article was not nominated by me, nor even a "collaborator", but instead by Avi, who judging from his talk page seems to be a respected member of the Wikipedia community. Indeed, there have been 5 "IQ-related" nominations of late, of which two came from me, two from Avi, and one (the Mega Society) from Jefffire. All I have done is vote delete in all of them, which has obviously earnt the wrath of many people. Byrgenwulf 15:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks Michael, I have cretaed an account. With regard to Byrgenwulf's suggestions, he'd do well to keep them up himself. If there is arbitrary information, let him point it out. As it is, he just blindly goes for deletions. StevanMD 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Replace "as the self-styled leader" with in "in the vanguard" as you wish. -- Michael C. Price talk 15:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply


  • Comment Furthermore, even the very name of the organization to which Byrgenwulf belongs, the Brights, is seriously misleading, as it indicates a group of bright people, yet based on what their own site says: "A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview". Stevan Damjanovic
Note: this user has just vandalised the brights article here, replacing vast tracts of with what I think are extracts from St Augustine. Obviously proving a point. Mr Damjanovic, my organisational affiliations have nothing to do with the merits of this debate whatsoever. The Brights Movement has nothing to do with IQ. What you think of its name is irrelevant here. That is not a "beloved" article of mine: I've never edited it, and barely read it until earlier when I was looking at the vandalism. If you don't like it, fix it; if you think it merits deletion, try. Attempting to "discredit" me, as this seems to be an attempt to do, is irrelevant here, and I didn't even put this article up for deletion anyway. Byrgenwulf 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Note:In order to accuse me of vandalising an entry, that entry would need to be vandalised. As it happens, your society's entry is up and running without any damage to it. On the other hand, I have initiated the deletion procedure for it. StevanMD 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I see you have. Nonetheless anyone following the link above can see the St Augustine (I have to admire the irony, by the way; it is St Augustine, isn't it?) which was inserted and subsequently reverted. I do not regard it as "my" society, and I am deliberately staying away from that deletion debate, as I have the utmost confidence that that article will stand on its own merits. Nonetheless, I do not think that an article in Wikipedia has much to do with organisation's actual merit, so I'm not particularly concerned. Byrgenwulf 17:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
No, I was just demonstrating the principle that guides Wiki. Anyone can get anything deleted without real ground or qualifications to decide. Had I vandalised it, I wouldn't bother to restore it a minute later. StevanMD 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I understand, and while I don't think it is appropriate to use the system for "experiments" like this, I shall be watching with interest to see the outcome of that discussion. I don't think the Brights will be deleted, but let's see if you're right. As I say, I'm not getting involved, as I don't think I am neutral enough to participate. Byrgenwulf 18:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Indeed, it is Not appropriate. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thanks. - Quiddity 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I did not disrupt it. The point is that it's already disrupted. StevanMD 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:V Massmato 15:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Kimchi.sg; quite a walled garden we have here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • merge, or weak keep. He is listed at those sites/groups as a founder. [2] [3] [4], and I've heard of these groups years ago whilst investigating Mensa, so the groups themselves are sufficiently notable. -- Quiddity 18:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment the sites mentioned appear to fall far short of WP:BIO's "significant press coverage" criterion. "I've heard of X" is not a reason to keep X; I've heard of no end of unencyclopedic things and so has every other editor. Only a few editors think that's grounds for automatic inclusion, but policy does not agree. It's been said above that the subject appears in "Marquis's Who's Who". If that's true, and if the work is a reliable source, the article can readily be edited to meet WP:BIO. (Although I have to say that the " submit your own entry" option on the website does make me wonder ...) Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I meant "I've heard of" to imply that these arent just spam-lure creations, or similar. I've changed my "vote" to prefer a merge, though to where i don't know. High IQ society maybe? He has started a lot of them (which is indeed motivationally suspicious (pure financial greed?), but not a reason to exclude from wikipedia.) - Quiddity 20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Angus McLellan -- walled garden filled with WP:VAIN. -- NORTH talk 22:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

COMMENT for guidance for participants and admin. Please note that procedure states that notability is NOT an issue that deletion is concerned with. Also I don't know why everyone's voting since these are also NOT relevant.

Notability:

most of this discussion is concerned with Notability whereas the deletion guidelines clearly state the grounds for deletion are WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:COPY, none of which are in much doubt.

Voting:

Voting is not in accordance with the following guidelines:
deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing. - Wikipedia:Deletion policy
To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion
On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion
Another volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the AFD discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article. -- Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure
An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". -- Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure

-- Michael C. Price talk 00:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, Michael, if the subject is not notable, it is grounds for a speedy deletion, which means once tagged with something like {{ db-bio}}, any admin can make a decision about said article, and if they feel it isn't notable, delete it out of hand. So, running this through WP:AfD is actually giving the article some benefit of the doubt. -- Avi 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

That's not what speedy deletion says: a case of divergence between procedure and practice. -- Michael C. Price talk 06:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Speedy send you here: Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. Since I agree that an assertion of notability has been made, the article is following WP:AfD. -- Avi 06:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The claims of vanity are also false. The article was not created by the subject himself. Speedy deletion is only an option when it is absolutely clear that the AfD would succeed. It is clear that that is not the case (look at the keep votes), so speedy delete is not appropriate. -- Michael C. Price talk 06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Which is exactly why it is here. My point is simply that notability is ALSO subject to AfD, when there is doubt, but it is discussed more clearly discussed in CSD. -- Avi 06:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Non-notable "High IQ" guy. -- GWO
  • Comment "GWO" self-contradicts; "high IO guy" is notable in itself, as I patiently pointed out above. SOUTH 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • SOUTH, I realise you're new here and still getting a "feel" for the etiquette, as it were. But please read WP:CIVILITY; in particular, using the edit summary to make comments about users isn't really being very civil. In particular, you said [5] that GWO's delete comment is "not notable". Whatever you think of his argument, it is nonetheless just as "notable" in this discussion as your own arguments, and the edit summary is not the place to express opinions on how you see it. Thank you. Byrgenwulf 13:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I fail to see how describing someone's argument as "non-notable" is uncivil -- the description was applied to the assessment made, not to the user, and, furthermore, seemed IMO to be valid: it was contradictory. Although it does help show what a "load of old bollocks" the notion of notability is; it is now used a subjective, meaningless phrase that is bandied around when ever someone doesn't like something. -- Michael C. Price talk 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. After reading this lengthly debate and checking out the article it seems to me that this "high IQ guy" must warrent an article. Not because he is a high IQ guy but merely because this stub is quite good even though it is weak on the WP:VER side of things. Certianly this is not a vanity page but it is a weak article overall considering its lack of sources and is in dire need of them. Should this article not gather proper citations later i think it should be reconsidered.- (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 14:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. You have got to be kidding. GregorB 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Eagle and the 1999 Esquire magazine reference, this person is noteworthy. [6] RFerreira 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I find it amusing that you will delete entries based upon a supposed lack of "notability". How can you define such a nebulous thing? Psuedouridine is a rather small niche molecule that only biochemists interested in tRNA synthesis would have any knowledge of. My remark goes to your approach to a supposed "open" community forum, where anyone may post information for others to peruse. What I think you have by introducing "deletions" are a group of petty people that will, in effect, enact a New Speak effect upon your webpage--eventually obviating it, as a more useful and less restrictive online encyclopedia comes along. I will cite one example of this and you can mull this over amongst yourselves. There is a very notable person, Ronald K. Hoeflin, former contributor to OMNI magazine and inventor of intelligence testing at high levels of deviation from the norm. He is also affiliated with Marilyn vos Savant. She too is notable for her high IQ and parade magazine contributions. Soon you will be routing all those persons form your webpage, because some snippy high-school student or misanthrope is offended that they aren't a genius, or just for malice. Anyway, that aside, the point is Ronald has been designated as a possible entry for deletion. I don't intend to get into your system and attempt to play by "your" rules. I want you to know that they are flawed. There was no common consensus on the removal of the entry for "Mega Society" -- yet you allow ample space on your webpage for people to engage in family tree history and so forth. I suggest you review that recent case and tell me if it makes sense to you. And is it true that the final decision for the removal of the entry was placed into the hands of an 11th grader? No wisdom to age correlation I suppose? I would say all of wikipedia is under siege by modern day internet grafittists that will remove information for whim and add what they and their peer group find trendy---where is the factuality then? I for one can find other sources for information, however for your enterprise here at Wikipedia, I see it slipping. But as a professor, I feel inclined to point to this as an example to students and colleagues that your webpage is not as valuable or serious source of information as previously thought. If I cannot rely on you to report the whole truth, bad and good, then how can I count on you at all? It should be up to the readers and consensus editing to articles to enrich them.... but to remove them outright? Ronald K. Hoeflin does exist, and he is a philosopher too. Will you be removing Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, Socrates, and Plato? I just see no end in sight to your silly WebPages system...you eventually will self-reduce to a compendium of 8th grade trivial pop-culture and not a vast source of knowledge of the larger spectrum of humanity. TKRIB
  • Keep Although Dr. Hoeflin had predecessors (Christopher Harding, Kevin Langdon), he more than any other living person has advanced the state of the art of high range intelligence testing. This makes him notable and easily qualifies him for an article in Wikipedia. Canon 18:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Admins - please take note of the fact that there is a lot of shilling going on in this AfD. Canon is one of the Mega Sciety's three officers and Michael C. Price is also a member. As involved parties, they should remove themselves from the discussion due to promotional interests. DaturaS 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, if these gentlemen declare their interests, then they are not doing anything wrong. It is only misleading or shilling if one pretends to be a "concerned member of the public" or some other form of uninvolved third party. Many participants here are obviously members of various IQ societies, and have never attempted to obscure this. Byrgenwulf 20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I have never attempted to hide my membership status (and Noesis is available on-line, so I couldn't anyway). As for whether I have to actively declare anything, well do I have to declare I have a Physics BSc/MSc before editing a physics article? I note that my user page and sig at least display my name, which is more than can be said of DaturaS's one-word user page. -- Michael C. Price talk 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but fill out the stub with more facts. Aye-Aye 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep no need to add anything - see above "keeps" Cadwgan Gedrych 21:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I started this page, and I can ensure you I'm not Ron Hoeflin, friends with Ron Hoeflin, or enemies with Ron Hoeflin. Has Wikipedia jumped the shark? Galizur 01:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 07:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Tribalwar

No citations. WP:WEB and not a "place" of historial record to keep internal events. -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

From New Users

  • Keep same as above 24.12.146.151 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep! Same as above... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.185.121 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 04:09:01 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tribalwar was cited from the Tribes article previously, and the citations appear to have been deleted (by replacing the link with the word alone. 68.147.242.17 05:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • User Shane is attempting to 66.41.43.67 04:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • [Added by Data] User nominating this page for deletion is acting solely on a personal vendetta. The TribalWar community is 15,786 members and 7,248,464 forum posts of Internet history. It is the sole remaining community web site for the Earthsiege/Starsiege/Tribes universe, and has been THE source for Tribes news and resources since 1999. In short, there is no viable reason to delete this page.
  • (personal attacks removed) 71.196.158.238
  • Keep. [Added by old_skul] This AFD is a personal vendetta against the site and should be summarily discounted. Although the article could use some cleanup, it's clearly a page in history for many people and serves as a historical record of many of the social interactions that make internet forums generally interesting from a social standpoint. It would be detrimental to Wikipedia to remove this article. Old skul 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. [Added by DwarfVader] As the page describes Tribalwar has been a part of internet history, much in the same way that Something Awful, and the person named Maddox. Both have articles writing on Wiki, just as Tribalwar does. If Tribalwar were to be deleted for the reasons stated above those entries would have to be removed as well as they fall EXACTLY under the same qualifications that Tribalwar does. Bugs or Shane recently created his own unfourtunate drama over at Tribalwar, that resulted in him making an ass out of himself. He blames Tribalwar for this very incident and thus has choosen to attempt to have this article deleted in an effort to "get back at Tribalwar."--- DwarfVader 04:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. TribalWar is a relevant staple of the internet and gaming community. It has referential ties to other similar websites such as Something Awful and 4Chan, and has several notable "claims to fame" such as interaction with CNN and Tribes community-specific LAN events. TribalWar is the last resource for any Tribes/Starseige/Earthsiege content and continues to renew its content to compete with modern gaming resources. This proposed deletion is a purely personal and spiteful event due to TribalWar forum mockery/embarrasment of Shane "Bugs5382" Froebel, and further discussion is a waste of Wikipedia resources. As noted by TribalWar Site Administrator Anthony "Rayn" Maio, Shane Froebel was a TribalWar staff member who was fired from the site several years ago, and this proposed deletion is only part of his ongoing vendetta against the community. -- Fboftwfame 04:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Same as above
  • Keep Same as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncleslappy ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep User shane's actions are not WP:AGF due to an off site personal attack. WP:NPA IamZombie 05:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Same as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.54.181 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep Same as above stated reasons. To erase a wikipedia article based on the temper tantrums of a single person would be to violate the reason for Wiki being as great and comprehensive as it is.-- 24.166.185.5 05:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Neither WP:WEB nor WP:NPOV have been violated by Tribalwar's entry. This delete nomination is a mean spirited counter-attack by Shane on an organization he has a well-know vandetta against. Shane, if you wish to become a Wiki moderator as your personal page suggests, you might not want to engage in this blantent sort of childish behavior in the future. Tribalwar isn't the only place you'll get fired from as an admin. 67.174.18.197 05:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. TW is one of the most popular forums on the web and as such deserves a Wikipedia page. I'm quite perplexed that Shane has nominated this for deletion, to be quite blunt. Shane, why not just help make it better, as others have been spending their time doing?— Tommyjb 05:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per all reasons listed. TW is an important forum and has made a few notable contributions to internet culture. Not to mention Shane is doing this for all the wrong reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.153.175 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep Same as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.94.234 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep I think it should be kept. I also think it does need to be slightly rewritten. Helot 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep By WP:WEB guidelines, a website is fit for an article if it has appeared in a major outside source. Various outside sources have mentioned www.tribalwar.com due to the internet meme All Your Base. Also by the same, http://pc.gamezone.com, as well as a multitude of other gaming-related newssites have mentioned Tribalwar in relation to the Tribes franchise. These qualify it under WP:WEB. WP:NPOV only comes into play when there is a debate over any information given in the article. This is easily remidied by editing, not deletion. Xpdnc 05:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Tribalwar is a great forum and has a lot of users. It deserves a wiki. Shane's personal problems with the site triggered this and that is not fair to Tribalwar. This AFD request is an abuse of Wikipedia 67.80.77.53 06:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Unseemly personal issues aside, www.tribalwar.com is deserving of a wikipedia article for several reasons. Firstly, due to the fact that it is directly linked to the popularization of the All Your Base phenomenon. The AYB movie that was cited in Newsweek as being one of the first incidences of homespun viral media was developed from original tribalwar forum content, and was posted there for the first time. The site and its content are therefore a legitimate part of history from an internet content perspective, and may serve as a reference for viral content history and research. Secondly, the CNN hotlinking episode, although minor, is a footnote that serves as a useful cautionary tale for internet content providers with respect to the practice of hotlinking. The many thousand people who were subject to the incident may or may not be aware of its background, and considering the sizable population of those affected, it is entirely justifiable to think that they may want a record of what really happened at that time. As such, the site is notable. However, it still admittedly requires some editing and provision of direct sources. LogRoller 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ^ same as above ^— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.235.15 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep one of the first great gaming sites and a Tribes franchise icon. Its evolved more beyond it original roots, it just needs updates. 69.108.239.32 10:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A large part of the tribes community for six years and one of the major discussion sites on the web. With a great history that should be documented on wikipedia. 69.169.220.162 10:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Same as above
  • Keep As linked earlier, the person who marked this has made threats stating that he would keep re-marking every 10 months. Coupled with the fact that it was done in response to an off-site joke, I believe that it violates WP:HA as it is clearly harassment and bullying. Xpdnc 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Vote stuck out. Please don't vote keep more than once. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • New users please note: Arguments about vendettas, or about other subjects having Wikipedia articles, are irrelevant. Your best arguments to demonstrate that this article should be kept are to cite sources. Cite magazine feature articles, books, papers in journals, documentaries, and so forth that are about this web site, and that are from sources independent of the web site. Sources are a fundamental thing here at Wikipedia. Arguing about how "great" a web site is does not address the charge, made below, that this article is unverifiable (in contravention of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy) or original research (in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy). If it cannot be shown — if you don't cite sources to show — that this article is verifiable and that it does not comprise a wholly new history and description of the web site that has not aready been published by a reliable source outside of Wikipedia, then all the "It's great. You must keep it." arguments in the world won't prevent its deletion. Please cite sources. Uncle G 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:Thank you for being the one Wikipedian who provided valuable information to this discussion. TribalWar has a multitude of members prepared to correct any problems with the TribalWar Wiki, and would appreciate insight into any issues with the information, (like you have provided) rather than attacks at membership/credibility/so forth. Fboftwfame 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KeepSame as above—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.215.75 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 12:34:39 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it has valuable info. -- TimBoston 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep-Scoobs— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.81.10.2 ( talk • contribs)
  • KeepSame as above - Paladin-5
  • KEEP [eVo Superman] - TribalWar is a legendary gaming site and will go down in the annals of WWW history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.227.161.167 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 17:34:04 (UTC)
  • Keep - The major complaints with this page seem to involve content that shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia. The discussion page would have been the appropriate place to talk about removing those sections. Also, note that there does seem to be an effort in the discussion page, including a temp page, attempting to clean the article, contrary to GassyGuy's claim above. Finally, on the specifics of notability, the CNN hotlinking issue is still cited as a reason never to hotlink anything. -- BlueSoxSWJ 03:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.88.218 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-22 00:45:18 (UTC)
  • Keep This article really needs cleanup, but I think its notable enough to stay. This AFD is very ugly considering its origins and reflects the worst of Wikipedia. Mrcfjf 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are no policies that warrant deleting this article. -- Goatwarrior 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article goes against so many Wikipedia standards that I won't even bother to list them all They have been posted already, anyway. -- 24.95.157.245 22:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is a highly dangerous precedent to set to delete content on a bad faith nomination from a user with bias. Surely this is a small, tangential article but the intent of the nominator must be taken into to account. All the article needs is a major clean up.-- Rayn21 16:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteTribalwar claims alot but provides practically no references to back it up, going against Wikipedia standards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.17.5 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep Cleaning this article up a bit should be sufficient enough to bring it in line with WP:WEB and WP:NPOV. -- LX702 16:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

From established users

  • Keep. Tribalwar is fairly popular internet message-board. Has references comparable to other boards like 4chan. Addps4cat 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • No outside references. That doesn't gives it a WP:NPOV. -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • You're only trying to get the page deleted because everyone hates you on the forum. Please stop being such a child. Addps4cat 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Data's comment. User nominated the page due to an incident on the forum/forums IRC channel. Article has survived AFD nominations before, no reason for it to be deleted now, least of all because the user is mad. DemonWeb 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Has over 10k Google hits, seems notable but needs work and sources. Crazynas t 06:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per Crazynas. For the love of God, run it through cleanup and NPOV, and add outside references. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment should it get kept, there are portions of the article which will need to be rewritten in order to make sense. On first glance, the "notable events" section would appear to be in the wrong order for one thing. BigHaz 05:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with Rehaul. The user is clearly doing this for person reasons. The Tribalwar forums are more than notable by sheer population alone population, hits, and the relevancy to the Starsiege: Tribes community. The developers of Tribes: Vengeance seem to have spent a great deal of time there, though not to any positive affect since the game sold horribly. Far lesser fansites for less popular topics have been kept in the past. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, rather notable forum for being one of the starting points of the All Your Bases meme. Finding suitable sources should be a matter of a bit of effort. hateless 04:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I see almost nothing in terms of outside notability that makes this subject deserving of an article of its own. IronDuke 04:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Buck ets ofg✐ 13:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable website, alexa rank of 71000 Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Alexa is an absolutely terrible source for page visit information. Its toolbar is practically spyware. That is like referencing The Onion.-- 67.76.181.133 02:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup.Much more notable than many sites that have a wikipedia article.Needs some cleanup.-- Jsone 10:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:WEB. Mere mentions of a web-site in the media aren't enough; the text of the notability guideline is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (my emphasis). Sock flood not a good sign; see this thread on the tribalwar forums. More than usual, all keep votes here by new users should be discounted. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If we held that standard to [7], we'd have to delete every page there except maybe slashdot or SA. Just because it is written somewhere as policy doesn't mean it necessarily holds to every single page like law. Also you contend that these are sock puppets and yet the forum link you posted is ample evidence that one person didn't make all these comments or accounts. This isn't a vote btw, it's a discussion. Addps4cat 13:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I doubt the verity of your claim that Slashdot and SA are the only two Internet forums that are notable per WP:WEB, but that is not the main issue. I don't see how this article meets WP:WEB, which, by the way, is only a guideline, not "policy". The sole rationale provided for why this article meets WP:WEB above—that it has been covered by the press—is not sufficient, in my opinion. Note also that the presence of other articles on non-notable stuff on Wikipedia does not excuse or justify the presence of this article on a non-notable stuff. As regards sock puppets, you might have a technically valid point that these voters are not sockpuppets but meatpuppets. Consider my initial statement suitably amended as appropriate. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, I also have to second Kaustuv Chaudhuri's recommendation to discount all votes from new accounts. I also recommend to discount all votes where the voter makes a personal attack against the AfD nominator as part of the reasoning for his or her vote. -- TheFarix ( Talk) 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I agree that personal attacks on Shane should be kept out of this DISCUSSION (for the second time, this isn't a black and white VOTE sir). However, may supporters of the Tribalwar wikipedia article reacted in this manner because Shane's nomination to delete their article is based entirely on recent events on Tribalwar pertaining to images of his sister. Shane has even gone so far to try and negotiate with Tribalwar, reportedly stating "I will withdraw the Afd, if you can convince everyone, and I mean everyone on TW to post zero information on me and my family members ever again. That included everything: pictures, transcripts, images, and etc. everything. And that is the only compromise that I will give. One thing is broken, I will re-add it to AFD." I agree the Tribalwar wiki article might need some work to get it up to standards, but this is a gross misuse of Wikipedia administration tools by Shane. -Bonafide 67.174.18.197 14:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • At the risk of writing too much on a subject I don't really care about, I would like to point everyone to WP:SOAP. Please keep forum wars confined to the forums, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Comments about the nominator are not germane to the discussion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Whether the article should be kept or deleted is based on the merits of AfD nomination and the subsequent comments of other wikieditors. If the article has enough merit for inclusion in Wikipedia, then it will often survive the AfD process regardless of the nominator's motivations. With that said, most of the keep votes have either engaged in a personal attack against the nominator, outright declared this as a bad faith nomination, or both. None of these provide enough merit to keep the article by themselves. -- TheFarix ( Talk) 14:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, I have to disagree. Just because myself and others are new accounts dosen't mean that our opinions on the matter are not valid. IamZombie 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • New users like you are unlikely to base your keep comments on our policies and guidelines. Kimchi.sg 15:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • That's kind of an elitist attitude. Yes, I recently registered my account. That does not mean that I have not been using wikipedia as a source of information for a number of years now. I created my account so I could provide my opinion of the tribalwar entry. I find this type of accusation insulting. the tribalwar wiki entry has existed since March of 2005, (possibly earlier than that, but the edits only show the last 500). As to why I never created an account on the site, I never felt that any input I could provide would be of importantce, until now. This is a issue I felt strongly enough about to register and voice my opinion. IamZombie 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Note: User:IamZombie is a new users whose only edits so far have been to this AFD discussion. -- The Anome 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • WP:EQ See Words of Advice "Be open and warmly welcoming, not insular." User:IamZombie
          • See, even the devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose :) Addps4cat 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Ironic isn't it. (it's the same reason we're here in the firstplace. :) IamZombie 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Comment Indeed it is. User:The Anome makes it abundantly clear that Wikipedia protects their own, and has nothing but contempt for the lay users, be they new or old, who contribute to their site. This AfD has very little to do with the content of Tribalwar and much more to do with the actions of User:Bugs5382, and anyone from WP who states otherwise is either uninformed or a damn liar. -- LX702 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Everyking 11:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Gamecruft. Artw 14:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This looks like a serious case of meatpuppetry. Closing admin: Please don't be intimidated by the hordes of new users - remember that regardless of hordes of new users, WP:V is non-negotiable, and none of the sources in the article are reliable sources. Captainktainer * Talk 15:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Remember, verifiability and reliable sources are NOT reasons for deletion. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The idea behind wikipedia is to *improve* articles, not just delete them because they don't follow policy. Addps4cat 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Actually, being wholly unverifiable is one of the primary reasons for deleting articles. Wikipedia:Verifiability is our of our fundamental content policies. If you want to argue that this article should not be deleted, you should be citing sources to demonstrate that the article is verifiable, not arguing that we should ignore one of the project's fundamental policies. Uncle G 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Yes you are correct, being wholly unverifiable is a reason for deletion. My argument is that TW is indeed verifiable and does have citable sources. Just because the TW wiki page currently lacks those features does not mean it should be deleted out-of-hand. People citing those policies want this page to be deleted because of that without realizing the article can improved not deleted. Addps4cat 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • If you wish to argue that the article is verifiable, then cite the sources that you argue can be cited. For best effect, cite them in the article. Adding citations of reliable sources to an article is one of the best ways to argue that it should not be deleted. Just claiming that there are sources, without citing them or even giving a single clue as to what they are, holds little to no water, on the other hand. Please cite sources. Uncle G 17:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I suspect I'll regret this, but I would point Captainktainer in the general direction of 4chan (its only AfD was closed as bad-faith). I think there are various other forum and website articles that should obviously be there, but which have serious problems meeting WP:V too. (Unfortunately, it seems like everyone agrees it's a good idea, but fewer actually follow it.) - makomk 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no references to other reliable sources that mention events in this article are provided, thus fails verifiability test. We've been here before; verifiability is non-negotiable. Kimchi.sg 15:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB; agree with User:Captainktainer re WP:V and meatpuppetry. -- The Anome 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, again, regarding the positioning in the community: 69,000 Google results for "Tribalwar.com" (96,000 for Tribalwar alone, but that's more vague). There were also interviews and official contests held by the developers of Tribes: Vengeance during its development, as they regarded the site to be the most important in the community. Note that other fansites in such positions, such as BZPower have passed their AfDs due to the same reasoning. Of course, it's hard to call this purely a Tribes fansite any longer, but it still has standing in the community and is linked to from outside for purely that reason. I do agree, however, that the article needs to be completely rewritten/overhauled, and much of the cruftyness removed -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep but needs a rewrite as per Consumed Crustacean's comments. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Seems to be evidence that it's a reasonably significant fan forum for the Tribes games (not from quite as reliable sources as I'd like, but anything more is probably too much to ask, this being game-related and all.) Most of the article content is totally unverifiable cruft that has no place on Wikipedia, though. - makomk 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Before we go about deleting this article, lets have a look at WP:V. per Wikipedia:Deletion policy in the section about things inwhich deletion is not needed, there is a section on what to do with unverifiable articles. Please give this one month, if no citations are found in that time frame (out of the many ghits), then bring this back for deletion. —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - One of the biggest puppeteering AFDs I've ever seen... impressive... anyways, just wanted to say that regardless of notability, a good deal of information in the current article is OR and unverifiable and should be removed, though probably after this debate has reached conclusion. Wickethewok 19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR WP:WEB. Whispering 20:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, especially if AYBABTU originated there. -- M e rovingian ( T, C, @) 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete, It took me a while to determine which way to go, but once you boil it's all down, this is ultimately a vanity article. -- TheFarix ( Talk) 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, I'll also like to note that the TW members have some serious ownership issues with regard to this article. This is why I doubt that a rewrite will properly scrub the article of it's WP:VANITY status. -- TheFarix ( Talk) 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, seems to violate WP:OR and WP:WEB. Also, the massive wad of meatpuppetry is disturbing. Picaroon9288 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Addps4cat, but must be cleaned up. Themindset 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Your continuous use of "meatpuppet" is offensive and on the order of the personal attacks which were aimed squarely (and rightfully) at the user who nominated this article for deletion. If you can't comment without calling us names, then don't comment. We have just as much right to be here (if not more) than you do -- meatpuppets or otherwise. 63.230.5.15 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, Meatpuppet is a perfectly normal classification in AfDs, especially ones invovling forums like this. Read the link. It is not a personal attack. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Reply - "Normal" by what standards? Most English-speaking individuals would take offense to being called a "meatpuppet". Further, from your link:
        • Quote: "Use of this term is generally not advised, since it can be perceived as highly uncivil, and is certainly likely to discourage new users from participating further." 63.230.5.15 21:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Comment it's fairly obvious that the forum is recruiting people to give keep "votes" for this AfD. When it's done to this degree, some editors get annoyed. Can you not see the reason for that? At that, most English-speaking individuals wouldn't know what the hell "Articles for Deletion" is either. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment,Removed by IamZombie 21:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) User above posted it in a better manner. IamZombie 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Personal attacks are never rightfully aimed at anyone on Wikipedia ( WP:NPA). Calling users meatpuppets is certainly uncivil (also a violation of policy: WP:CIVIL) and possibly also a personal attack. Your criticism here is valid, and I at least will openly admit to not considering WP:CIVIL inviolable and knowingly making (possible) personal attacks. But this accusation is not random or unjustified. In my opinion, meatpuppettry is an apt and evocative description of externally influenced collusion (I have provided the evidence earlier) to sway consensus on Wikipedia, which makes one of the most fundamental and inviolable policies—indeed the backbone—of Wikipedia, neutrality, impossible. You certainly have as much (not more!) right as anyone to contribute to Wikipedia, but note that anything you contribute will be mercilessly edited by other editors. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Most Internet forums are not notable (in my opinion), and this one doesn't make much of a case as far as WP:WEB. I see claims on this AfD that it could have reliable sources, but as nobody has added any to the article, I have a certain degree of doubt. GassyGuy 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Although it is perhaps a notable message board, I'm not sure if wikipedia is the place for such an article. It also strikes me as vanity and useless hard to read incidents such as "chairgate" do not help this article. To me a encyclopedia dramatica entry would be more appropriate. Lenn0r 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Having seen the entry for encyclopedia dramatica, I'm inclined to agree that most of the information in the article should be moved, leaving possibly only an entry that describes Tribalwar's place as a hub for the game series Tribes. The history cruft should be moved to the other site which seems a better fit. Xpdnc 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup. Seems notable to be on BigBoards (even though's a bad indicator of forum size, but thats another story). Motivation of nominator is also an issue. -- Steel 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, no external cites, 80th on big-boards isn't impressive. Phr ( talk) 09:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per 80th on big-boards, though I'm not sure what really can be said about this forum... not many claims to fame aside of the AYBABTU thing, which is already covered in an article of its own. If kept, this needs massive cleanup. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 12:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per ranking on big boards. There are many websites with even lower Alexa rankings. Also, Alexa may be unreliable source of website info. -- Richman271 talk/ con 21:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Alexa is misleading for this type of site since Alexa basically measures page views, and sites like this get tons of reloads from their users. 80th on big-boards is pretty feeble IMO. Take a look at the higher-ranked ones (70-80, say): http://rankings.big-boards.com/?p=4 -- 79th is "Howard forums" mobile phone discussion board, 78th is "S2KI Honda S2000 owners' community", etc.; I can't see those as encyclopedic. Big-boards itself is pretty specialized, so 80th place is really no big deal. It might be evidence (not conclusive) of notibility if a site is in Big-boards top 10, but certainly not 80th. Phr ( talk) 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Shane was fired from TribalWar for this exact shit. He abused his position as a staff member at TW to delete forum posts by people [personal attacks removed]. As far as notability, if it's okay to have articles about people who troll Internet forums (e.g. Gay Nigger Association of America), there should be no problem with ones about Internet forums themselves. Nido 22:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Nothing wrong with articles on internet forums that are notable and well-documented. That doesn't appear to be the case with this article. Maybe the forum could get a mention in the Tribes article. This article is largely about various personalities who hang out on the forum, which are totally nn. Phr ( talk) 22:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Note: Please review WP:NPA. No personal attacks please. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V and for missing WP:WEB and for and generally being WP:VSCA. Internet fora need to demonstrate notability, and this doesn't so much fail to so aa not bother even trying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable, lacks verifiable sources. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 23:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete No assertion of encyclopedic notability, and verifiability problems. If this article is kept than a major cleanup is needed to remove non-encyclopedic content. Possibly also semi-protect to ward off the hordes of forumpuppets Bwithh 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Alexa traffic ranking 71,752 and dropping, but at least it's in the top 100,000. Content needs verification, but that's not a deletion issue. -- John Nagle 16:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. As mentioned, Alexa is *not* a reliable source of information. Their data is dependent on their toolbar, which no computer savvy user would ever use. As TribalWar's main audience is computer savvy users, Alexa's data is highly inaccurate.-- 24.161.31.179 21:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment, I agree. As I said before, Google results and the website's connection with Sierra / Irrational Games / the general Tribes community are far better indicators. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is pretty clearly a bad faith nomination. However, if we don't use Alexa or Google as standards for websites, what do we use? It doesn't appeare to be notable, and contains no outside sources. Danielross40 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete I agree wth Danielross40 in that this is likely a bad faith nom but that does not excuse the fact that this article does not verify anything with outside sources. Also, I found the language very inclusive and after reading the article in full i did not come away with much valuable information about Tribes or even thefurum itself really. So, if this article gets a rewrite with NPOV and is given good sources i would suggest keeping it. But until then this article is mainly useless for the outsider as a peice of esoteric fan/gamecruft.- (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article does not give any information that is useful enough for an encyclopedia. Thus, delete or a major clean-up. -- angers 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The Adventures of Fifine

A furry webcomic, seen here. For a website that has been online since 1999, it gets a surprisingly little amount of Google hits, 34 of them. None of those hits are reliable sources on which to base a Wikipedia article. The comic is hosted on a furry webcomic site, purrsia, which has an Alexa rank of 80,000, but you'll see from that link that the majority of hits to that domain name are to the comic Freefall (webcomic). Not a notable website, lacking reliable sources. - Hahnch e n 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment As of late, AFD's = WAR AGAINST WEB COMICS -- Librarianofages 00:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Every couple of months I do a sweep of the webcomics category. I probably couldn't keep up this rate of nominations indefinitely, and I lose interest anyway. I'd certainly welcome more people to look over the Webcomics category. - Hahnch e n 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. No, it's housekeeping for nonnotable webcomics. There's a difference between some random webcomic and Kazu Kibuishi's Copper, for example. The latter's been nominated for an Eisner and won other various awards. -- ColourBurst 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: The webcomics category is filled and constantly refilled with unreferenced and unverified vanispamcruftisement. Thank you, Hahnchen, for helping clean up this encyclopedia. -- Dragonfiend 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless WP:NN and WP:V is established. SynergeticMaggot 01:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above -- Alias Flood 01:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The article provides no indication that this particular comic is widely viewed, and independent assessment indicates few links to it (what Google measures). Therefore, the world isn't wondering what it is, and our readers aren't seeking an explanation. The fact that it is a webcomic is irrelevant: it is a web comic that doesn't have a claim to fame other than persistence. Old age is not a testimonial. Geogre 02:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable webcomic. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment A version of this article is available on Comixpedia: The Adventures of Fifine. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 02:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn Homestarmy 03:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails to assert notability. -- ColourBurst 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per nom. Artw 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per WP:WEB, no assertion of notability. -- The Anome 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above — Fire Fox 21:30, 21 July '06
  • Delete. Entirely fails to assert notability. Alphachimp talk 01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, does not meet our content policies, starting with WP:V. -- Dragonfiend 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The comic has several printed books, meeting notability requirements. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: "Printed books" by themselves do not confer notability; self-publishing, for example, doesn't make it more notable. If you get picked up by a notable publisher, such as Dark Horse comics or Scholastic Press, that's a different story. -- ColourBurst 06:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:WEB Massmatto 16:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Fur Will Fly

This article was previously AFDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fur Will Fly, that discussion resulted in a no consensus after only 3 editors' input. Nothing has changed since my last nomination, only that the Alexa rank for the comics hosting site has falled to 550,000. The article contains no reliable sources. We should be applying the WP:WEB guidelines as strictly to webcomics as we do with other websites. A guideline that this webcomic fails. Note that the webcomic author Brian Daniel has been included in this nomination - Hahnch e n 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. No ascertion of notablility. SynergeticMaggot 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above -- Alias Flood 01:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and strong delete the author. Esteffect 01:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Essentially the same format as the above: the article merely says X = Y and then goes into excessive detail reiterating the thing. What is missing from this is the significance of X. What effect has it had? What notoriety has it gained? This is dangerously close to an A7 speedy delete candidate. Geogre 02:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 02:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The comic has been around for 6 years and has attained a decent following. In fact, the fact that it has an Alexa rank in the first place helps it's case...most webcomics probably wouldn't even rank in the top million, if at all. In addition, the article has already survived one AfD, and has been around for a year. The article could use some improvement, but that's not a delete reason. Oh, and Strong Delete the author, who really should have his own nomination.-- UsaSatsui 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. comic is not in the top 100,000 websites http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=&y=t&q=&size=medium&range=&url=www.furwillfly.com -- Ageo020 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I can find lots of pages not in the top 100,000 websites. I don't recall Alexa rank being a criteria for deletion anyway. -- UsaSatsui 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Alexa can be used as an indicator to how popular a website is. A rank of 550,000 suggests that it isn't, it's by no means a be all and end all, if you look at some of the wikilinks in my nomination, you'll see that one of them led to a 10,000 ranked website which was recently deleted. However, the subject of this article really needs some outside independent sources. As Geogre mentions, the article contains no assertion of notability outside that it exists. - Hahnch e n 03:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom Homestarmy 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, delete author per nom (but do a better job with multiples next time, this almost qualifies as a drive-by). -- Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both non-notable webcomic and author hoopydink Conas tá tú? 06:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Artw 14:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nom Buck ets ofg✐ 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This is the nom's 2nd attempt at removing this comic. The comic in question has been worked on by various noted artists in webcomics. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -per nom. Massmatto 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • d per nom GangstaEB~( penguin logs) 20:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Transwiki'd to WikiFur: Fur Will Fly. I would suggest that if other such comic articles are deleted, moving a copy over to us should be considered before the actual deletion, as we do not have Wikipedia's notability/verifiability requirements, instead welcoming all furry fandom topics. We are also better-equipped to improve the relevant articles. -- GreenReaper 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 04:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Debate Klub

A webcomic found here with a total of 31 strips to its belt, 20 Google hits, no Alexa rank and a Wikipedia article that needs to get deleted. - Hahnch e n 00:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 03:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Friend Bear (comic)

The webcomic can be seen here, there is no Alexa rank, although the article claims that it served 20,000 unique visitors a month. Maybe that's true, but there's no external sources about the subject that I can find. That's probably because it is not a notable website or piece of work. - Hahnch e n 00:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless WP:NN and WP:V is established. -- Alias Flood 01:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 02:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable webcomic. The claim appears to be unverifiable. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if there is no verification in the following week. The strip seems to have had its fame on a mailing list, which wouldn't register Google hits. Further, its heyday is in the distant past, by Google cache standards, so the claims are possible, but there would need to be some lasting effect of this former "meme" for there to need to be an article. Things like "All Your Base" are dead horses, but they persist a bit. Has this? The article doesn't give us reason to believe it did. Did it lead to some outgrowth? The article doesn't tell us. Again, some indication of significance, if its notability is passed, needs to be offered. Geogre 02:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment A version of this article is available on Comixpedia: Friend Bear. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 10:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom Buck ets ofg✐ 00:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Black Tapestries

My third and final furry webcomic nomination of today, you can see the comic here. It's hosted on Comic Genesis a free webhost like Bravenet or Livejournal. Alexa says that Black Tapestries draws 4% of the hits to the comicgen.com domain (which is ranked at 30,000). Looking on Google, with search strings like "Black Tapestries" webcomic and "Black Tapestries" webcomic review, I couldn't find a decent external source writing about this webcomic. None notable, unsourced furry webcomic articles belong at Wikifur or Comixpedia, not here. - Hahnch e n 01:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Necessary evil

A short, diffuse essay on the topic, which has lots of potential to become a long, diffuse essay. WP != soapbox. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as OR, unless references can be found (and something significant can be said). -- InShaneee 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Original Reasearch. SynergeticMaggot 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not much material for anything but a definition of an expression. Maybe it should be a wictionary entry. -- Xrblsnggt 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The only thing that can be said about necessary evil that's NPOV is its definition, which belongs in wiktionary.-- SweetNeo85 01:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Dictdef + OR. It seems to exist to give its external link, so there is some advertising, too. It is possible to have an encyclopedic article on the theory of the necessary evil, but this isn't it. Geogre 02:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, but it would be good to have an entry on the subject of evil in general.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.250.202.104 ( talk • contribs) 01:23, July 21, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone comes up with something encyclopedic to say about it (it is a widespread phrase after all). Fireplace 11:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Evil for the moment. Zargulon 12:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - might end up worthy of full article, but this isn't it. Also a similar concept to The ends justify the means, could maybe be pulled together with that. Ace of Risk 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and other deletes. Artw 14:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as original research — Fire Fox 21:36, 21 July '06
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:SOAP Buck ets ofg✐ 00:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:NOT a dictionary of quotations or a soapbox. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Looks like a good idea to merge it. I wrote the article. I'll put it into one of the others. Barbara Shack 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) I've put it into " The ends justify the means Barbara Shack 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per Barbara Shack - (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 07:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Antena 2

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. SweetNeo85 01:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - they should come back when/if launched. BlueValour 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG Keep & Re-write *EDIT* Station has started broadcasting [8], -- Librarianofages 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - when they actually are one of the five Romanian TV stations they can have an article. Until then this is crystalballism per nom - Peripitus (Talk) 02:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: All this is is an announcement of a plan. Plans are notoriously subject to gang aglee. What's more, the article is a statement of a negative: 'the other station hasn't gone on the air, and no one knows why.' Well, when there is information to impart and a thing to have information about, it will be time to report on it. Until then, the authors can keep a weather eye on the station. Geogre 02:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - That report, the only one, is not dated so it is not clear whether that is a test tranmission or whether scheduled broadcasts have started. Since it is on Google it will have pre-dated the article so one or other is wrong. I guess it will become clearer over the next few days. BlueValour 03:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The Antena that is focused on news is Antena 3 (Romania), so probably that page is reffering to that Antena (not to Antena 2, which focuses on male public). Additionally, the HTTP Last-Modified tag of that page says "25 Jan 2006, 14:30:55 GMT"; since I live in Romania, I would know if it started broadcasting for so much time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsocol ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment - because it may not start broadcasting again. If you know it will please tell me next week's winning lottery numbers :-) BlueValour 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the answer to the question is in the nom statement. Themindset 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The channel is regularly operating (and has been for some time, no testing - a normal schedule matching what is indicated on their website) together with Antena 1, 3 and 4 on Eutelsat W2. Downlink data are in all (Italian) satellite magazines. -- 82.58.196.174 22:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)MarcoNew user; this is this user's only contribution. BlueValour 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 04:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Snootysims

One of many websites for The Sims and The Sims 2. Reads like a personal account of how the site grew, and is kind of an advertisement anyway. 13,700 Google hits but this is one of many fansites that would only be notable on a Wikia Wiki for The Sims. Esteffect 01:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Cruftycalifragellisticexpialadocious -- Xrblsnggt 02:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as a test. This is a very, very clear test article. Look at the inappropriate cut and paste HTML tags. See the "insert formula here." Blug. Had the author learned our editing and done this, it would have been a speedy delete as an A7: biography of an imaginary person not appearing in fiction. Biographies of screen names are not biographies: they're personal fantasies, and I don't want to intrude. Geogre 02:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB.Cruftycalifragellisticexpialadocious.... hmmm..... must remember that - Peripitus (Talk) 02:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. R.E. Freak 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:VAIN WilyD 12:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Artw 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above — Fire Fox 21:36, 21 July '06
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 04:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Abdul Gafoor M.A., D.Litt , Irayarul Kavimani

I cannot trace a reference to Irayarul Kavimani and I haven't found Abdul Gafoor in the context of a Tamil scholar rather than a Mosque. Can anyone help further? BlueValour 01:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep This article was only created 2 days ago! therefore we must allow room for ORGANIC EXPANSION also I forget the rule but aren't we meant to give new articles time? In the next couple of days (if verifiable) I will expand myself! -- Librarianofages 02:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - there was actually a case for speedy so 5 extra days are being allowed :-) When an article is created it is incumbant on the author to establish notability. Notwithstanding that, I have carried out my own research and would not have brought the article here if I could have found grounds for notability. BlueValour 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You haven't even stubified, what makes you think that you're the be all and end all of researching everything from Scholars to TV stations? -- Librarianofages 02:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - You've lost me on the second part of your comment - I do not claim to be an expert. On the TV station the article itself implies it may not launch and here the point I made is that I make some enquires even if the article doesn't establish notability. I cannot see what you object to in that. Bear in mind an AfD allows 5 days for discussion/expansion. Good point on stub - I have stubbified and categorized. BlueValour 02:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or speedy delete: It's a clear A7 again: no claims for importance. Being a scholar is good, but it is not encyclopedic. Further, the article has to provide the verification. "Organic expansion" is not an argument: it's a wish. Geogre 02:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete it seems difficult to verify. Article also needs to explain why he was notable. Will reconsider if expanded. Dlyons493 Talk 02:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep for now and expand. There are some hits for him on Google Scholar, though not all of them are relevant (but about half are). I'll change my mind if this doesn't get expanded. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a fairly common name and I wonder about many of those hits. For example, this Abdul Gafoor is notable and should have an article but I think he's a different person. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. Dlyons493 Talk 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep expand it or delete it. his works must be known to the general public or scholars in Tamil Nadu. -- Ageo020 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment His works notability need to be verified by someone who can read Tamil or Arabic (the most likely language for translation), obviously whichever language his books are written in will be the language they're primarily discussed in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarianofages ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete Ste4k 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Just too unimportant a figure. Jonswift 04:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if no notability is asserted till time of closing. I will reconsider otherwise. — Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 09:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no-one seems interested in adding any notability to the article. BlueValour 11:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Kickfighting

Neologism, original research are both possible. At the very least no sources are cited. Creator has been notified. SweetNeo85 01:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. This appears to exist, but the article needs sources and cleanup. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Send to cleanup: Yes, it exists, but this is a melange of poopy writing and thinking. Let's hope clean up can actually insert some references and make the wording work. Geogre 02:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Since it is probably all the result of a fertile imagination (I have searched high and low for references without success and the editors haven't produced any in 2 months) how can it be cleanedup? It would result in all content being removed and then speedied for no-content :-) BlueValour 07:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I didn't know that it had such a long history (didn't check). If it's been here for 2 months and still looks like this, it should go. We had a debate a year or so ago about various forms of Wallball or something like that, and we decided to keep children's games, if they could be discussed coherently. This game does exist among the energetic and aggressive, but it isn't being discussed coherently, so delete without prejudice against a proper article creation (not recreation). Geogre 11:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN neologism Resolute 03:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete please. Ste4k 03:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete neologism, fails WP:V Alphachimp talk 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - it seems to be a term that can be used loosely for 'Kung Fu Kickfighting' and 'Kickboxing'. However, I cannot find any references to it being an organised sport or a specific terminology. Nothing is lost by deleting it and it can be recreated if a reliable source is found. BlueValour 07:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Chuck Norris Says: Roundhouse kick into the Delete pile. -- GWO

* Keep subject to my memory playing tricks as I think I've heard of this. I'll try and do a bit of cleanup when I get the chance - there's a bunch of hits on google. MLA 12:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete changing my recommendation as I can't verify my own recollections - I feel sure I've heard of it but it cpuld just be a promotional term from the early days of full contact fighting. The article as it currently exists has nothing to do with kickfighting in any form of combat sport or martial art style and is just a non-notable game made up in school. MLA 11:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I am happy to stand corrected but the Google hits, as mentioned above, seem to relate to a loose description of other sports. The key point is that in this article it refers to hands tied behind the back whereas kickfighting per Google are all variants where you can use feet or hands. BlueValour 15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 since no one is going to shed a tear for this advert of adverts. Kimchi.sg 15:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Secure-webconferencing

Blatant advertising. They even put search keywords at the bottom to generate hits. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote your product and/or service. -- Xrblsnggt 01:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Possibly the worst case of spam I have ever seen. The keywords section is truly ridiculous. Wickethewok 02:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm in favour of keeping as many articles as possible, but this would not be one of them per above reasons. -- Librarianofages 02:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It looks like an email sent by spammers to rip off someone. -- Sbluen 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Spam essay. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - blatant spam - Peripitus (Talk) 02:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: It can't be speedied for advertising, and it's not really spam (which would be speedyable), but it's a clear deletion guideline failure: a signed promo for a service. If it experienced a mysterious accident in the night, few would mourn, I'm sure. Geogre 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Is this a copyvio of something? It seems like it probably should be, though I don't find this essay on their website... Wickethewok 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I was hoping so, too. I think, unfortunately, it's an original come-on just for us. Either that or it's a copyvio of their e-mail spam sandwich or of their pamphlet. I think it may trip and fall down the stairs soon. Geogre 11:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of cars in Burnout Legends

No information here that isn't game guide information. I merged the content at top into the Burnout Legends article. A list of cars with explanations of how to unlock them is the only other content. This is most certainly a game guide, which Wikipedia most certainly is not. Of all the game articles listed recently, this could be the most noncontroversial and obvious AFD so far (imo at least). *Delete as an obvious game guide with other content already having been merged. Wickethewok 01:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. ( ESkog)( Talk) 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Plannoay DVD Rating System

Original research. No background. Appears to be something somebody just made up. Zero G-hits. -- Xrblsnggt 02:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as original research. -- Metropolitan90 02:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as original research. Even the single word "Plannoay" returns zero Google hits. Johntex\ talk 02:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable method. -- Sbluen 02:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, original research. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Uhhhh, I looked at it. I read it. I have a strong feeling that it's not original research at all, that it is a service provided for a fee or a sign up opt-in and that, therefore, what's really happening here is a form of advertising. I'm just not sure what the heck this system is supposed to do for people -- help pirates win arguments? Convince kids to pay full price? Settle video geek arm wrestling competitions? If the article can't even tell you the usefulness of the thing, it's a failure as an article and an ad. Geogre 02:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 03:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOR or what Geogre said...either way it's a delete. Alphachimp talk 04:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Geogre. Voice of Treason 04:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Surely some sort of joke. Example: "[-3 points] If the star is an ex-wrestling personality." Nothing on Google or even Google groups. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Geogre's insightful comment. - (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 by User:Enochlau with deletion summary "nonsense". BryanG (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

We are dinosaurs

  • Delete prod tag was removed by author but the article does not assert notability of subject. Jersey Devil 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I'd like to add that if notability is established I'll change my vote.-- Jersey Devil 02:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A8, new copyvio. The text is just lifted off the website listed in the article. Add this to the character list on the Sanrio article if not already there. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete: Not only is this a copyvio, it's anti-contextual and therefore pretty much nonsense. Geogre 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy-d per above. SynergeticMaggot 03:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per above. Czj 06:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. ( ESkog)( Talk) 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Xceedspeed.net

SPAM. -- Xrblsnggt 02:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This article is about a non-notable website. -- Sbluen 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. SynergeticMaggot 02:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Local club, local mailing list, and no wider appeal or significance offered. Geogre 02:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 02:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not a well known website. Just advertising-- Ageo020 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:WEB Alphachimp talk 04:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Why didn't the nominator just speedy-delete? It was only made today... -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I chose to add the afd tag instead of speedy-delete because this article has a little bit of content and spam is a non-criterian. Then Xrblsnggt nominated it before I finished thinking of my reason. -- Sbluen 06:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - hoax. Johntex\ talk 03:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

619 sex position

Article would appear to be unsourced original research. At best it is a neologism. The article also contains dubious "facts" such as the area code in San Diego (which is 619) was named after this sex position. Google returns zero hits on "619 sex position". "in the 619 position" gets some hits but they are about a wrestling hold. "position 619" gets some hits but they are about a referendum/statute. Johntex\ talk 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Update: Thanks for your comments. Upon further investigation, it seems the author of this article was a vandalism-only account. I'm going to speedy delete the article and block the user. Johntex\ talk 03:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedily closed, needs to go on WP:MFD. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan

nn Characters. Zong785 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep seems like a genuine character. not vanity article but a little self promoting.-- Ageo020 02:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Expand There's something here, but it's not here just yet. R.E. Freak 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close, this doesn't belong in AFD. Wherever it is, it should be kept, because it's in the correct namespace for its purpose. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 CSD A7 - in one line. Whiskey tango foxtrot, indeed. Kimchi.sg 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Protean Knights

Advertising for WOW guild. Not NPOV Sjledet 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete wikipedia is not a game guide. maybe could have a few lines in the game's article itself-- Ageo020 02:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. syphonbyte ( t| c) 02:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it's a guild. Danny Lilithborne 03:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete possibly with acid. Fails vanity, spam, whiskey tango foxtrot, et al. WilyD 12:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. ( ESkog)( Talk) 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Cherry band

This is a poorly defined neologism that returns no meaningful Google hits. NatusRoma | Talk 02:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. — Fire Fox 21:39, 21 July '06
  • The fact that I'm LMAO is the only reason not to slap this with a speedy delete 216.141.226.190 04:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. There are some "merge" votes, but there is another discussion for the merge of the article ongoing, so these were not counted. – Will ( Take me down to the Paradise City) 10:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

DotA Allstars

Page amounts to a game guide (violating WP:NOT) for a non-notable subject (a spin-off version of the custom map Defense of the Ancients for the computer game Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne), with an excessive trivia section. JimmyBlackwing 03:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Dota allstars is currently the most played game on the WC engine, apart from the actual game itself. It is notable enough to have its own article -- Librarianofages 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There seems to have been some confusion in the history. It was merged after the previous AfD (which ended with merge and redirect), the redirect was then deleted to make way for moving a page created under a different name, perhaps a demerged version. No vote.-- Chaser T 03:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The notability of DotA Allstars has gone up significantly since that last AfD in 2005. That is likely the reason for it popping up again. -- JRavn 05:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. The two main parts of the article are a version history and an explanation of the inspiration for each of the heroes (characters). I think that this may be original research as it may not be published anywhere else. Thus, it probably also fails to be verifiable. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service. A lot of work by the DotA community went into this article, so I hope there is someplace to which it could be trans-wikied. -- Habap 10:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The article used to also contain sections on terminology (most of which was not specific to DotA), verbal acknowledgements when making kills in the game and a collection of weblinks. The current version looks odd without those sections, which may provide a better article, though don't necessarily make it any more encyclopedic and do make it more of a game guide. -- Habap 10:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Some Transwiki, Some Keep - Being played on the internet is not a acceptable claim of notability; Being a map heavily used in tournaments /is/. I know it's been mentioned numerous times on TechTV (pre-merger) and on G4 (post-merger) if the tournament notability isn't enough. The issue is the style of writing in the article; The answer is {{sofixit}}. Transwiki some of the content to something like Gameguides (or whatever it's name is), leave minor focus on the structure of it, and instead focus on it's use in the tournament setting and, possibly, it's recognition by Blizzard Entertainment. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Do they use DotA or DotA:Allstars in the tournaments? -- Habap 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
DotA:Allstars has been included in blizzard tournaments recently (few months ago). That should be added to this article. eventine 13:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. How is this a game guide? There's no description on how to play with the items and heroes, or the game mechanics, only where they get the names from. Nevertheless, if the article is kept (only on the condition that it really has been used in major tournaments, which can be verified) the section with items and heroes should be removed and replaced with which tournaments use the mod. Either that, or merge into a warcraft custom mods article. -- ColourBurst 17:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The tournament information is in the final paragraph of the opening section of Defense of the Ancients and references the CPL page] on DotA. It states in the rules that they user version 6.32b, which sounds like a DotA:A version. I have never played the game, so I don't know. -- Habap 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - If someone can find and cite information from reliable sources claiming that this WC3 map is especially of interest (eg. most popular map used in tournaments, press coverage from relatively important sources) over the next couple days, maybe its worth a keep, but if no one presents any reliable sources after this reasonable amount of time, I say delete. That said, the article's content/writing is terrible and most of it is likely original research. Wickethewok 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's not really a game guide it's more of a list of things updated to the map. Either way it's not encyclopedic. Whispering 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
While it is more of a list, it is not an update list. There is nothing in what WP:NOT that I think this page violates. eventine 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not a game guide, but almost all of the content is on the other DoTA page. Why even bother a merge? David Fuchs 23:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Very little of the information is listed on the other page. Look at the allusions and point to wheres that listed on the other page? eventine 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree that some of the article is completely useless especially the development. The player trends has importance and should mention that Blizzard now includes DotA Allstars as part of the tournaments. Does need citations, but that is difficult to find whereas if you actually go on Bnet you will see more people play DotA than any other custom map. Outside of the game development section, the article is not a game guide as it does not suggest what heroes/items do. What I think is most important is that this is the ONLY version of DotA still played. That combined with its popularity and inclusion in tournaments should merit a keep. eventine 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment A citation on the use of DotA can be found in the end of the opening section of Defense of the Ancients. If DotA:Allstars is the version use for that and is the only version of DotA still being played, why not just merge whatever useful information there is into that article? The section on allusions doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, but might be interesting in a game guide. -- Habap 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
DotA article is a history of the development of DotA spin offs, but none of the other games are really popular to such an extent. In my opinion, the DotA articles should be merged. But since this isn't about merging but deleting, I have to go with a keep. I think that allusions and cultural references do belong in an encyclopedia. eventine 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Typically, people who want to keep the information but not the article vote something like Merge or Trans-wiki. There also is no reason that we can't merge the information now and make the vote irrelevant. Do you really think identifying the source of every character is encyclopedic? There like 49 characters and 20 items. That seems like excessive detail. Regardless, if that's the information here that ought to be retained, let's copy it to the main article and be done with this. -- Habap 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I really do think that the details are important. I think they're interesting and informative. And I think they should remain in the article. Excessive is if we look for every possible source or potential allusion for every hero/item. eventine 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The information on the heroes and items is unencyclopedic, and sections themselves are pure original research, in addition to being largely speculation. Even if the article is kept, the sections will need to be removed. JimmyBlackwing 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It strikes me as an informative page. If one doesn't know what the subject is, he can learn by reading this article. Which is kinda the point of any article. And any more information then the needed (like version history) can be removed from the article. -- Acid Ammo 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article was improperly redirected and marked as having the AfD closed without it being closed here, so I have reverted that. Assuming the article gets deleted, wouldn't it best redirect to Defense of the Ancients? -- Habap 10:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - acutally, I was reinstating the verdict following the previous AFD. I didn't realise it was up for AFD again. Proto:: type 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment - whatever the previous verdict was, i am sure the redirect wasn't to warcraft iii... we should just merge this into dota and get it over with. the information here is interesting/good enough that it shouldn't be lost completely. eventine 13:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete, fails WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:V. Proto:: type 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, much of this game cruft should not make the DoTA article, as it was also nominated for a merge. But Merge, don't delete all of it. David Fuchs 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this page and delete Defense of the Ancients. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Furthermore, these two pages are not notable enough to have a separate page on Wikipedia. Perhaps they can be briefly mentioned in the Warcraft III article. (Emphasis on briefly which means that I do not support a complete merge). Sijo Ripa 14:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per above. Haven't we been here before? Whispering 16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. per User:Proto -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep More notable and popular than original game and most of it is verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsdemir ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep This is most famous map on Battle.net -- Sasa Stefanovic • 03:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and merge/redirect to Defense of the Ancients. There's no need for both pages. The current article violates WP:V badly, and I don't think anything could be done to change that. There's no need for both pages. Defense of the Ancients already covers Allstars well enough. Keep This is definitely a notable topic. A google search returns over a million results, almost all of which are relevent. If anything, Defense of the Ancients needs to be deleted - it looks like a duplicate. The classic AOS maps are not notable, only Allstars is worth mentioning. I would guess that the majority of War3 players are playing DotA. The article itself could use some cleanup and citations though. -- JRavn 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The content of Defense of the Ancients is what should go into DotA Allstars. They should be merged and one deleted (I'd say Defense of the Ancients because DotA Allstars is the notable name). The current content of the DotA Allstars article is bad, but again, I don't think that's reason to delete it but it needs to be fixed. -- JRavn 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak merge with Defense of the Ancients. Weak because the entire Defense of the Ancients article is threatening to be taken over by AllStars information. If the other variants of DotA were expanded, it would be great but the article would be too large. So my vote is delete all the information below ==Allusions== and merge with Defense of the Ancients, but we need more information about the other versions, seriously. x42bn6 Talk 07:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 04:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Frankie Abernathy

A cast member of one season of a reality TV show is not notable, and, in particular, fails WP:BIO. NatusRoma | Talk 03:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are a few lines about the said person on The Real World San Diego( reality show) article. That should be enough. A separate article is not needed-- Ageo020 05:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redir per Ageo020. Themindset 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, although I watched the show. She was a very colorful character (self-mutilating, emotional, many, MANY piercings & tattoos) , but these were her only TV appearances. She never went on and did the challenges. I loved every minute of her, but there's enough on her on The Real World: San Diego article. 64.241.230.3 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I forgot to sign in. Don MEGĂ| 60645 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sociomimetics

This is a fairly reputable neologism, but it is a neologism nonetheless, and is too new a "discipline" to have anything like scholarship or verifiable information behind it. NatusRoma | Talk 03:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - 55 Google hits seems to be an indication that it isn't so notable. If it had more hits, I would suggest a merge into a related article such as Charles Armstrong, but I don't see any particularly relevant topic that it could fit into at this point. Fabricationary 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Might be worthy of an article someday, but not yet. Kafziel 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Shapeome

Prod was removed without comment now it's afd. Nn notable neologism, no Ghits for Shapeome or Shapernomics, both links as this is created point to the same site with no reference to this term Ávril ʃáη 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, per nomination.-- Ávril ʃáη 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I may be wrong, but I think the nomination sort of counts as a deletion vote already. Regardless, it seems to fail any notability test (and the external link to the university seems to be there for show, I couldn't find a reference to "shapeome" anywhere on it with a search). BigHaz 03:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I wasn't sure if the nom counted and can remove the vote it if it's not correct.-- Ávril ʃáη 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete - you need to acknowledge that there is a volume a literature, applications and research in the area of stydying biological shape, form and size. The words are new and not common, however the definitions of Shapeome and Shapeomics are clear and unambiguous. By the same token, we should not accept any of the 100's of -omics and -ome terms that clearly define modern concepts in biological sciences. Please see these links: http://www.genomicglossaries.com/content/omes.asp & Resourceome.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwaterpolo ( talk • contribs)
It is not that Wikipedia has to acknowledge, it is that articles have to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Notability guidelines.-- Ávril ʃáη 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - the fact that there are other terms ending in "omics" and "ome" is totally beside the point. None of those four links contain any reference to the word "shapeome" or "shapeomics" or any other construction designed to convey that meaning. Wikipedia exists so that concepts which are notable have articles on them, not topics which might become notable, regardless of how well-defined or logically-formed in English they might be. Unless and until evidence is provided that "shapeome" or "shapeomics" is a field of study recognised as such by reputable sources, it has no business being here. BigHaz 04:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a non-notable neologism. This reminds me too much of Connectome, from a couple weeks ago. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unheard field of science.-- Ageo020 05:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete fails WP:V, WP:NEO and common sense. -- Scientizzle 05:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Michael 07:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom; note that the external link is to a domain registered yesterday, which is not actually a website at all, but a redirect to the UCLA Center for Computational Biology -- a website on which the terms "shapeome" and "shapeomics" appear precisely zero times so far as I (and Google) can tell. This is not verifiable. Do feel free to come back when it is. — Haeleth Talk 10:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because it is a barbarism with no notable application. Byrgenwulf 11:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete used to be morphology when I was going to school. Dlyons493 Talk 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above Computerjoe 's talk 15:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. — Fire Fox 21:40, 21 July '06
  • Deletome is a more notable recent area of biology. Zargulon 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rje 23:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mass of the observable universe

Original research abakharev 04:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as OR. This could possibly serve as a redirect somewhere, but I don't know where. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unverified Research. Possibly a joke or a hoax-- Ageo020 05:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment put a mention of this AfD on the WikiProject Physics talk page. -- Koffieyahoo 05:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy as patent nonsense, and possibly vanity as well. Pages like this shouldn't be put up for AfD. It is better, in my opinion, to speedy such nonsensical sounding articles, and risk the remote chance of being wrong, than to leave them here while an AfD takes place. -- Philosophus T 06:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) See below. reply
  • Comment the article maybe complete crap, but I wonder how it is that Mass of the observable universe has been in the Orders of magnitude (mass) article since December 2003 and that there has been published an article on this subject in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics [9] -- Koffieyahoo 07:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The article is nonsense and OR, and can be speedied as such - the author is essentially multiplying a physical constant by some random value that came from nowhere. The idea could be added to the Observable universe article. But all the values I see here are suspect, and don't specify what they are talking about. Does mass mean baryonic matter or all matter? Either way, if one assumes that the "mass of a critical density universe" listed on the Orders of magnitude (mass) is for the observable universe (otherwise we can't really go converting density to mass, can we?), then the mass of the observable universe given there implies that , and more like 2, which is really wrong, so I assume something must be wrong with those values (or I am not thinking coherently). I'm removing them for now. An easy order of magnitude estimate would be , and is probably obvious enough that it can't be considered OR, but I don't want to do anything like that right now.

      As for the IJTP article, I can't get to it, and it isn't in Citebase. It is really old, too (1994), before any of the really accurate measurements of the important values. -- Philosophus T 10:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

      • Haven't looked at the IJTP article, I only wanted to demonstrate that the subject of the article was a valid one, eventhough the article itself was complete crap, which in my opition would just require a rewrite by someone with some knowledge of the field (not me in this case) and not an AfD. -- Koffieyahoo 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It would be a bad merge, as all the information appears to be wrong, except the value of the Planck length... WilyD 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I'm proposing that it be speedied, not merged. I am just suggesting that an order of magnitude figure for the total mass of all matter in the observable universe should be added to Observable universe.-- Philosophus T 13:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Nevermemind - it was the Planck time he got right, the Planck length is wrong. WilyD 13:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

*Speedy per Philosophus - creator made this while thinking the same thoughts as led to [ this]. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete When time increases in negative three dimensions under the force of gravity you oddly enough, have mass. Now that is odd. Keep the rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 12:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

*Speedy per Philosophus Jibbles | Talk 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) *Speedy Delete if someone cold bore a hole in this article to let the demons out, that'd be great. Thanks WilyD 13:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Comment per the rewrite, I'm now neutral between Keep and merge to Observable Universe WilyD 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I don't see it as speedy material. It's nonsense but not patent nonsense. Consider the fact that to a layman a good deal of modern physics reads as incomprehensible gibberish. Fan-1967 13:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment that may be true, but phycisists could step in and say No, it's fine. This isn't the case here. There are words there, but the words don't form into coherent thoughts. That's what makes it patent nonsense. It may take a long time to understand Cauchy's principle value theorom, but you can do it - this stuff can never be understood, hence patent nonsense. WilyD 14:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I think we need to be very careful with applying G1, which is for "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: ... implausible theories, or hoaxes."" This is not incoherent or gibberish. It's very well laid out and clearly stated. It just happens to be garbage. -- Fan-1967 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Comment you may be right, but I'm not convinced. It has all the form of language, but I'm not really sure it's coherent. Much as I detest Chomsky, he had a good point with Colourless green ideas sleep furiously - a phrase I think we could also dismiss as patent nonsense, even though it has all the trappings of being well laid out and clearly stated. WilyD 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Comment A few years ago, someone might have said the same about the following: "The observable universe is only 4% of the actual universe; the other 96% is composed of two varieties of undetectable substance whose existence can only be inferred from their effects." -- Fan-1967 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Right, but they would have been wrong, which is the different. I can say it about the phrase Brazil is the largest country in South America but I would be mistaken. The key signature of incoherence is that it's impossible to extract information from the sentence. If you're contending that it's only incoherent because it's excessively vague, you may be right, I have no idea. WilyD 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Fan-1967 is right. This article isn't patent nonsense. The text in section #1 is a quite legible description, in words, of the formula given in the introduction, for example. That the article is wrong does not mean that it is patent nonsense. Uncle G 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Nonsensical claims that are coherently phrased are still nonsense. The equations used in the article are pulled straight out of thin air, as are the statements about number of spacelike and timelike dimensions needed. See observable universe for sane and accurate treatment of the question. -- Christopher Thomas 19:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
              • Whether the article is nonsense is not at issue. Whether it is patent nonsense is. The two are not the same, and only the latter is speedily deletable. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria by erroneously conflating nonsense and patent nonsense. Uncle G 19:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V. It doesn't have to be true, but it has to be verifiable. Unless the author(s) can cite some sources to back up their assertions, it should be deleted. Scorpiondollprincess 14:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WilyD. Warning: By deleting articles you do increase the entropy of the universe a bit :) Count Iblis 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete OR Computerjoe 's talk 15:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nonsense. -- Christopher Thomas 15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It was at this point that a source was added to the article.
  • The article is wrong, inasmuch as it doesn't agree with the cited source. But this article does cite a source. An article on the subject of the mass of the observable universe can be written simply by cleaning this article up so that it agrees with the source that it cites. There's no need to delete the article in order to do that, and indeed deleting the article makes the source inaccessible. I encourage the participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics who have come to this discussion to aid in rewriting this article so that it matches what the sources actually say. Keep. Uncle G 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would be more inclined to allow this AFD to conclude and let this be deleted. Then if some good editors want to create a new article with this title (and without even the history of this stuff), I believe that would be a much better path. Fan-1967 19:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • There's nothing innately bad about having this content in the article's history. If anything, it will demonstrate Wikipedia's cleanup process in action. There is no reason for an administrator to hit the delete button on this article (and one good reason not to, as stated before). It does not require administrator privileges to make this article better. It merely requires ordinary editors to edit it in the ordinary way. The participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics are here. They should be able to clean this article up, so that it matches the source, in short order. Uncle G 19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It was at this point that the article was changed to make sense.
  • Keep as rewritten. Arguments for deletion no longer apply. -- Lambiam Talk 20:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect: the article is no longer nonsense, but should be part of the Observable universe article instead of an article in its own right. -- Philosophus T 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep the article is completely re-written and now is not an OR. I was the original nominator of this AfD abakharev 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KeepMerge the rewrite with Observable universe, as this is inherently a very short article. -- Koffieyahoo 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, much better now. -- M e rovingian ( T, C, @) 05:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Observable universe after rewrite. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep after rewrite. Polonium 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment seriously misleading while it lacks link to an article on observable universe which explains this term. Otherwise an intelligent layperson might well wonder, if the universe has infinite extent and finite matter density, how can it have a finite mass? There are many subtle points lurking here, but the first thing which needs to be explained is that the "observable universe" is defined wrt some event, such as "here on Earth in rougly 2000 AD", and corresponds to a finite region of spacetime whether or not the universe itself is infinite in extent. Of course, once you understand the meaning of the term, "mass of the universe" begins to look a bit silly. "Average density" is less silly, but also needs to be explained; do we try to estimate "density now" (e.g. on some hyperslice orthogonal to the world lines of dust particles in an FRW model) or "density averaged over places we can see as it was at the time which we can see now from where we are" (e.g. averaged over past light cone from here and now). This is just the first thing which comes to mind from skimming one paragraph. The article need a lot of work to become useful for a general audience.--- CH 06:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ben Michaelson

Apparent autobiography of a swimmer with questionable notability. Formerly had "Family and Politics", "Quotes", and "Random Facts" sections. I don't exactly know what it means, but another editor added a {{prod2a}} which stated:

D-II swimmer, swam in the Pan Am Games...I'm not convinced he's notable per WP:BIO

-- Omicronpersei8 ( talk) 04:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Vanity article.-- Ageo020 05:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete vanity. Zargulon 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • (Strong?) Keep and Rewrite - 30,000 google hits on "ben michaelson swim", the first two pages of which seem to all be him; The claims of recordholding, all are legitimized by NCAA.org; I'm not exactly a expert at swimming as a sport, but it sounds like he should easily be included in the encyclopedia. Thus, the issue seems to be the writing style of the primary author(s); The answer? {{sofixit}}. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
But if you put "Ben Michaelson" in quotes, it's more like 1,290. -- Omicronpersei8 ( talk) 16:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Partially because "Ben" can be "Benjamin" or "Benny" or "Benjawhatsawhosaphone", or "Michaelson, Ben" or "Michaelson, Benjamin"... Looking through "Ben Michaelson swim", most of those on the first few pages appear to be related to him. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEPOfcourse Michaelson is relevant. He was an outstanding swimmer ( and a former US record holder in the 100 shortcourse meter fly). At one point he was ranked 3rd in the nation. The article certaintly should be kept-- 24.44.45.85 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Keep per 24.44.45.85. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 21:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as follows. I placed the prod2 tag, based on this line in WP:BIO: "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States" (emphasis added). Michaelson did not compete at the highest level of college sports in the US; he was a Division II athlete. That's why I endorsed the proposed deletion. However, there's a blanket clause in WP:BIO: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." Michaelson's records—even if in D-II competition—are still standing. [10](PDF) It's hard to argue against the logic that the record book is part of the historical record. — C.Fred ( talk) 04:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If you understand the sport of swimming you would know that Michaelson did in fact compete at the highest level. While at SCSU he was an amature athlete, but after he was sponsored by Speedo and competed in American swimming's toughest, largest "league": USA Swimming. Michaelson also competed in Olympic Trials, narrowly missing the Olympic team (highest honor for a US swimmer) and competed in the Connocophillips National meets. And as Cfred said, Michaelson made notable contributions and held an American record and still holds records.-- Pearljam1932 18:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the anonymous user. Never thought I'd say that, but this individual holds and held multiple NCAA swimming records and thus meets our WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (GSN)

This series is not a notable series unto itself (GSN is a minor cable network), and Wikipedia doesn't need a borderline-copyvio copy of every "List of Greatest Foo". - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is just going to turn into another mess, like many of the other game show pages. I don't see how the series is notable enough, anyhow. Modor (talk)
  • Weak Keep Wikipedia does keep articles of little known tv shows. if its expanded in the next few weeks, then keep it-- Ageo020 05:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, why should this particular list of the 50 greatest games be on Wikipedia? It's really just GSN's POV, and even though GSN caters to the game show audience I'm not sure it should be here. I'd also point out that we also have the similar 50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (TV Guide), perhaps that should be nominated as well if this one is deleted. BryanG (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Hmm, I was interpreting this more as a list than a full-fledged series, but my fellow editors have pretty much destroyed that argument. Changing to keep per various below. BryanG (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This series represents the opinion of the television network that services the niche audience concerned with game shows. It is notable content. If the article does not develop over the course of the series into something deserving of its own article, the proper course of action would be a proposal for merger, either into the TV Guide list of 50 greatest game shows to create a single "greatest game shows" article or into the GSN article. I have edited this article. In fact, I deleted the prerequisite template that got us to this stage. Erechtheus 05:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as long as it is expanded. TJ Spyke 05:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Erechtheus. If consensus is to delete, perhaps we have a comparision between TV Guide's list and this one? Failing that, maybe a list of all game show rating lists? Or, perhaps, if those solutions fail, possibly have a category of those shows listed in either list, and then sort them so that they are organized, if technically possible? Ian Manka Talk to me! 06:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Del per BryanG (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC).— msh210℠ 07:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Listcruft. BoojiBoy 13:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. TV series are notable by default, especially if broadcast internationally. GSN is not a minor cable network as it is available not only in the US but in Canada as well and produces its own programming. If this were just a list of a magazine or TV show's opinion, that might be another matter, but this is specifically an article about a TV series. 23skidoo 13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Scorpiondollprincess 14:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it is not just a one time special. It is twenty something episodes. Tazz765 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. As 23skidoo said, this is not just a list, but a full-fledged television series airing in prime time on a nationally available cable network. Therefore, I think it deserves an entry. That said, I do think the article could be expanded to include descriptions of the specific episodes shown. Mikibacsi1124 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Erectheus. Lambertman 18:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep. I still think it should stay; I'm merely protesting its quality. :) Lambertman 03:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. GSN has always appeared among the top fifty (odd numerical coincidence) U.S. ad-supported cable networks in CableWorld's list of average prime time ratings. A seven-week, 21-hour series on such a network meets reasonable notability standards. Casey Abell 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per 23skidoo — Fire Fox 21:40, 21 July '06
  • Keep.-- Andresg770 21:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Erechtheus. Many (if not all) of GSN's original programs have their own pages in Wikipedia to boot -- why not this one? (I'd like to delete some options off the list itself, but that's another story.) Amnewsboy 02:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete TV series are NOT notable by default. This is a listcruft program with little real authority (the list was compiled by a few network executives when dreaming up this show?). I don't see any evidence that this is encyclopedically notable or has any real authority Bwithh 06:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment AfD box was deleted by 68.237.218.93 -- I have reverted to restore the box. Erechtheus 13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I wanted the AfD box to be deleted because that list is important to all Game Show fans. Some fans may not remember the list after they watch it. There are shows in the list that didn't air on GSN that people might want to take a look at. Please DO NOT delete this article! - User 68.237.218.93 13:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This is total cruft and borders on copyvio, I also ask that this vote get an extention due to the vandal that removed the notice. -- Shaunvader 10:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment thanks to the attention paid the page by not one but two different editors, the notice was gone for 25 minutes in total. I can't speak to extension policy, so it may be that one would automatically lie. If it's some sort of totality of the circumstances test, I'd hope the prompt replacement would weigh heavily in favor of no extension. Erechtheus 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment The AfD is running 16-5 keep, so an extension seems pointless. Keeping the AfD around for another day or two means the final would be maybe 19-7 keep. Frankly, it's about time to close this one. Casey Abell 22:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Uh, just did a hand count. It's 18-5 keep now. Why bother with an extension? Casey Abell 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can't imagine how this could be considered to border on copyvio, and more than any other TV episodes' descriptions would. This is original programming from a major network, lasting for many weeks, and is worthy of a page. Qaqaq 15:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – A TV series that airs a list is not cruft in-and-of-itself. I also agree with several people on here that GSN is NOT a minor cable network; while it is certainly not on the level of networks like ESPN or MTV, it most definitely has a niche audience (just like ESPN and MTV, incidentally). Speaking of which, a regular list-type show that airs on MTV or ESPN isn't considered cruft, but a list-type show that airs on GSN is? PS – If there is copyvio issues, send it to another editor for a rewrite; problem solved. [[ Briguy52748 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)]] reply
  • Strong keep this is no less crufty than a show like The Greatest Canadian or Hockeyville and it is a very useful reference which is not found elsewhere (not even on GSN's website) - Jord 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep What Qaqaq said. This isn't just a list, it's also a television series airing on a cable network that's available to more than half of US households. I even get it up here in Canada. There are articles on TV series here that are a lot more obscure, or air on networks with much less saturation. Kilraven 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Emophobia

NN Neologism. ghits: [11]-- NMChico24 05:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 CSD G7 - repeatedly blanked by author. Kimchi.sg 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Datafocal

Fails WP:CORP-- NMChico24 05:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Czj 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Page author has been blocked indefinitely due to repeated vandalism. -- NMChico24 11:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Excess dB Entertainment

Plus numerous redirects.

Blatant advert. Already userfied to Excessdb. -- RHaworth 05:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Erin Jennae

Prod tag was removed as well as original speedy tag, nn notable musician 547 googles and the top three are her website which says coming soon, myspace and Tripod. Alexa has no rating, fails WP:Notability WP:MUSIC, WP:NPOV, WP:V, vanity article, reads like a fan magazine and has been recreated and deleted 13 previous times. Ávril ʃáη 05:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete NN musician. TJ Spyke 05:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and salt. If it's been deleted and recreated 13 times, I think it's time that we protect it from ever being made, again. Ryūlóng 05:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete per nom and salt the earth. If this artist acheives notability in the future it can be recreated. -- Scientizzle 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non notable musician. Album is unknown to the mainstream. Looks like a vanity article to me.-- Ageo020 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per nom. To be fair, many of the 13 previous deletes were because a newbie continually recreated the article with just the picture insisting that was a proper article - so it got speedied over and over. — Wknight94 ( talk) 10:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Erin Jennae Burisse is an almost duplicate copy of this article, which should also be considered for deletion. -- Bruce1ee 11:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete - User also uses sockpuppets, and has been informed of WP policy on socks, re-creating, and notability - but continues to argue. HawkerTyphoon 17:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and protect from re-creation. If this looks similar to any of the previous 13 incarnations, make it a speedy deletion. Non-notable musician. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. Support protecting the page from recreation if it really has been deleted 13 times already. RFerreira 21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Rocco Guarino

Fails WP:MUSIC, was the assistant engineer for one album. Te ke 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. BigHaz 06:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my prod, from which I quote: ""Rocco Guarino" gets 355 G-hits." Apparently this guy thinks being an assistant engineer on a notable album is enough to make someone notable. Morgan Wick 06:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 10:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

"We are Slavs who came and settled in this region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians."

Not encyclopedia material. Creator removed my speedy notice so I'm nominating it here. Czj 05:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:NOR. ALso, this is not an article, it is a jumple of disconnected nonsense. -- Hetar 05:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This quote is attributed to Kiro Gligorov, who has the said quotation on his page. I don't think it merits an article by itself.-- Ageo020 05:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per above. Em-jay-es 05:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't quite figure out what point this is trying to make. Doesn't seem like encyclopaedic content. GassyGuy 06:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Surely to the extent that this is encyclopedic it can be worked into Macedonia (region) rather than this awful title. Gazpacho 06:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • HI THERE Feel free to delete this. I do eventually want to create articles, but being my first time I was only having a dabble around. In future text (such as this article) will be written in the discussion pages.06:28, 21 July 2006 Philhellenism (Talk | contribs)
  • Speedy delete as the creator of this article, User:Philhellenism, has approved its deletion. -- Metropolitan90 06:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 'ATTENTION SPEEDY DELETE That is correct, please delete it as this was my first time creating an article... A test run, but I'll tell you what!! I did not expect such a response (LOL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Pacific Surfliner. Mailer Diablo 21:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Surfliner

This page is redundant to the more complete Pacific Surfliner. If this page is kept it should be a redirect to that page. MrHudson 06:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Star Wars: Galaxy

Web role-playing forum with 800 users. Fails WP:WEB. FCYTravis 06:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rje 23:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Little Rubber Feet

Salvaged from WP:PROD, nominated there by User:BlankVerse with reason I can't decide whether this is a hoax or original research, but either way it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia. I thought I'd let the good folks at AFD decide whether it's hoax or OR or neither. (That may be the first time I've used "or" three times in a row.) I guess treat BlankVerse's vote as to delete, but I have no opinion (yet).— msh210℠ 07:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as original research - the feet are real but this article is very very silly - Peripitus (Talk) 07:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it is an old, but popular joke. - Sjledet 12:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per Sjledet, and per Pebkac and RTFM. Perhaps these could all be merged together as sarcastic technobabble, but I'm not sure how at the moment. The Bruce 13:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - good spoof, but search results either seem to be wikipedia mirrors WP:OR or suggest a possible copyvio from anything that may be the original source. LRF is given as an acronym for "little rubber feet", so the term has some independent backup. Ace of Risk 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for WP:V. Clever, but no sources cited. Could be made into a real article I s'pose, but as written it's just an unverifiable joke. Scorpiondollprincess 14:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unverifiable OR. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment For what it's worth, I've actually had a technology sales associate comment on the "LRF Stabilization" of a Desktop computer, telling me that the one desktop with the larger "rubber feet" handled the computer's "natural vibrations" better which meant that overall it would run more smoothly. :p And no, I didn't buy from him. ;) Agne 03:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • ???? - WP:BJAODN candidate? a better fate than deletion. Ace of Risk 13:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • NUKE!. It's not funny enough for BJAODN. For those voting keep, I'll change my mind if you can expand the article, citing your sources. Blank Verse 06:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 tera-deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Giga Society

If Mega is not notable, how is this? Avi 07:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete even though it is a weird trivia-type thing Michael07:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NN Homebrew "High IQ" society. Wikipedia is not a list of things made up at school Mensa meetings. -- GWO
  • Delete unless it can be made to satisfy WP:V. Currently the only references are two websites, which this page largely simply paraphrases. These are not reliable sources; we need reliable citations to prove that this is not just some guy's joke homepage, please, and preferably also some citations showing that it is notorious within the "high-IQ" society community. (Naturally, my delete recommendation must be disregarded if this issue has been fixed by the time the debate is closed.) — Haeleth Talk 10:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Byrgenwulf 11:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE. Not sufficiently notable. Buck ets ofg✐ 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in default of sources indicating this is not just a joke. Anville 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: unverifiable, non-notable absent proof of claims, surely the six allegedly smartest people in the world could design a better website than this? -- The Anome 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V. I commented on Mega, I should comment here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable. — Caesura (t) 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and there's no way to tell if this is just a joke. Unverifiable with reliable sources. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Organization's web site renders illegibly in Firefox 1.5.0.4. IQ of one in a billion and not smart enough to make a legible web site? The organization is a fraud. Phr ( talk) 09:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a bit grudgingly, because I have heard of them from outside sources (too bad I can't remember where). The group, regrettably, may not be notable, or if they are, there's just not that much to say about. Deserves a short mention in High IQ society (which they already have...) -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 12:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and the Anome. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wwwwolf. Their existance is verifiable so it deserves the mention in High IQ society, but not much else. -- NORTH talk 22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Campusbug

Article about yet another social networking website. This one was launched in March, and only claims to have 5,800 users (although I can't find this statistic backed up by the site itself). The site has plenty of pay-to-use services, and this article seems like just a vehicle for advertising to me. Fails to establish notability in any way and thus fails the WP:WEB inclousion criteria. └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 07:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Lezli

I had previously nominated an earlier version of this article for {{db-reason|not notable, [[WP:BIO|wikipedia is not myspace]]}}. Template removed by page's author. Article may still fall under WP:BIO, as it now has links to specific people's websites. I did not want to relist as {{ db}} or {{ prod}}, but felt a discussion is warranted. -- MrDolomite | Talk 07:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong delete It's just an effort by Lezli McDaniel to keep her name in Wiki by hidiing it among others. No need for a dab page until some genuine reason to disambiguate arises. Dlyons493 Talk 12:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - concur with Dlyons493 -- Whpq 12:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as vanity - why do people insist on embarassing themselves like this? Byrgenwulf 13:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Byrgenwulf's comments. Embarassing vanity Scorpiondollprincess 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all comments above. Anville 14:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete She made a stencil! wow! Do some people have no shame? -- Charlesknight 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete hopelessly embarassing vanity. "multi-talented firecracker"?! It's sickening to imagine that anyone out there could write about themselves like this. Shame on you. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete 'Well known stencils'? Well known to whom? -- DarkAudit 00:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The Black Stripe

Article about a website which reads like an ad, and fails to establish notability (and thus seemingly fails the WP:WEB inclusion guidelines). {{prod}} tag previously removed. └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 07:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Integrate a brief description of the service into an appropriate pre-existing article, if such a thing even exists. But if not, delete regardless. Czj 07:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and WP:OR. Yomangani 12:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Yomangani, it is in extremely poor form to delete my AfD vote. Czj 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Indeed it is, although it was unintentional. I've put it back and apologize. Yomangani 22:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom -- Whpq 12:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Slam dunk -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Artw 21:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Treeskunk Productions

Non-notable machinima production group. Vanity, written by a team member. Only one released production, an article on which has been twice deleted. Only other claim to fame is that it almost got a nomination for the 2005 Rockets on Prisoner Awards. Googling "Treeskunk Productions" -site:treeskunk.com (filtering out hits from official site) gets 179 hits, 37 unique. This article was also recreated only an hour after being speedied. I did not list it for speedy as a recreation as the deleting admin didn't seem to give a reason.-- Drat ( Talk) 10:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 transwikied to Wiktionary by NMChico24. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Aristophrenia

Non-notable neologism. ghits: [12] I have transwikied this after reviewing Wiktionary for the first time. -- NMChico24 09:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Transwiki to wiktionary. Yomangani 12:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Appears to be a real word. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I realise this word shows up in some online dictionaries, but it only comes up in google 129 times. So, it doesn't appear to be very widely used, and it's certainly not in Merriam-Webster [13]. It just seems like an underutilised neologism to me, IMHO. -- NMChico24 22:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwikification Complete After signing up for a Wiktionary account and curing myself of my ignorance of how that project works and what's acceptable, I have moved the definition there. — NM Chico 24 07:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Although, now that I'm reading this really wordy transwiki instruction page, I'm not sure I did it correctly. Someone might want to check my work, because I think I missed the middle "transwiki space" step. In any case, the article is on Wiktionary now. — NM Chico 24 08:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 by Dragonflysixtyseven. Kimchi.sg 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sheffield's Box

Yahoo! Answers minor hoax, no other Googles. PROD contested. FCYTravis 10:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Intimate spaces

Notability not established SJK 10:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom and for crystal balling. The event may become notable after it's happened, though. BigHaz 10:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, you're right. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Ruaraidh-dobson 12:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Crystal Ball. Scorpiondollprincess 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-notable crystal balling. - Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Galizisches_Infantrie_Regiment

It's an unintelligible list. Tagged with "wikify" since April 2006. Krankman 10:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 15:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ronald John Piscotty Jr

Vanity Page Phoenix Hacker 10:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Krankman 10:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Non-notable biography. -- Sbluen 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. User:Angr 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Antony_Phillips

Non-notable, vanity, bias/POV, non-factual Firi e n § 11:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. "Famous for being famous" is never a good sign where notability is concerned. 210.49.65.142 11:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Sorry, that was me above. BigHaz 11:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - brenneman {L} 02:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The_Ultranet

The Ultranet is up for deletion as an advert for a non-notable web forum, as well as probable vanity. 977 Google hits, most of which are actually for a product completely unrelated to this message board. See also this Afd. My advice is:

  • Delete Byrgenwulf 10:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN homebrew society. Self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a list of things made up at school Mensa meetings. -- GWO
  • Strong delete Spam, non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 12:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - This is an interesting and notable group that seeks to bring together creative thinkers, not only those with high IQs. DrL 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Note: User:DrL made the initial version of this page, and appears to be a WP:SPA. With a few trivial exceptions, every one of this user's contributions are about related topics The Ultranet, Mega Foundation, Christopher Michael Langan, etc. -- Phr ( talk) 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I'm an active Wikipedian and this is a legitimate entry. I am only making one vote here, so why all the fuss to contest it? DrL 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note that this page's content used to exist at Ultranet (High-IQ society). Per discussion on that article's Talk page, I merged the non- vanispamcruft content (what there was of it) to Christopher Michael Langan. Resurrecting that page with no discussion whatsoever is a bad violation of common practice. Delete. Anville 14:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I did make comments regarding this page and the merge suggestions. My comments were ignored and the page was merged. So much for common practice. DrL 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That's ridiculous. Of the articles you think should be deleted, half don't exist on this encyclopaedia (they're red links). The Giga Society is also being AfD'ed at the moment, and I see no reason why the others should stay, either. I'm sure they will be removed eventually. Byrgenwulf 19:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you are reaching back from a future state in which Wikipedia is cleansed of all high IQ references (or maybe I didn't realize WP was case-sensitive). I just noticed that Giga does have an AfD and I do see the same old clique ... DrL 20:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I appreciate the humour, DrL: when I read that comment of yours, as you know, those were red links which I see you have fixed now. Please read my comments on the other AfD for an explanation...I'm not offended by IQ (I loathe political correctness), and as I have repeatedly said, an article on "high IQ subculture" could be worthwhile...but every little club or society does not need an encyclopaedia article. Byrgenwulf 07:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; I would have hoped people associated with a high-IQ society would be smart enough to realise that it's not good to make misleading claims like "The Ultranet has been frequently discussed in the popular media, including the BBC", when the only evidence given to support this claim of notability is a single link to a BBC interview in which the forum is mentioned precisely once, as a passing reference. That is so far from "discussion" as to make the claim border on plain dishonesty. — Haeleth Talk 21:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This is an interview by Damien Fowler of the BBC. It features three members of the Ultranet, including two directors of the Mega Foundation, discussing the Foundation and its first major project, The Ultranet. That much is clear to anyone that reads it. DrL 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It is impossible for me to comprehend how mature and highly intelligent men can involve themselves in such detrimental "boy/fights" of this sort; specially, when they are "supposed" to be HiQ'ers. This personal barrage leaves no one untouched of scorn. It is absurd to delete anyones serious work on these undignified grounds.You must bear in mind that: a theory is just a theory, a theory it is. Joely R. Villalba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.90.44 ( talk • contribs)
  • Merge this and all similar Langan-related high-IQ-society articles into a list in Langan's biographical article. Phr ( talk) 12:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Тhis has gone beyond being serious. It's become a joke. Wiki as a concept sucumbs to its own openess due to the will of a handful of people who make judgments on whether articles are qualified for entry into an encyclopaedia, yet none of the handful involved has any qualifications to do so whatsover, other than being here long enough. That makes Wiki an utterly silly thing. There are thousands after thousands of entries of anonimous people, but the handful of puberty (or God knows what other problems) striken guys is after the IQ related ones most likely in order to prove to themselves that "these horrible, undiscovered creatures of misterious aptitude can be overcomed afterall". Well, you know what, Wiki is not all that important as you would like it to be. Stevan Damjanovic
  • Comment And you know, the joke is on Wikipedia and the admins. As you can see from Byrgenwulf's contribution history, his very first edit to Wikipedia was on July 2, 2006. He made a few innocuous edits (and waited a week, patient boy) before beginning his onslaught against the CTMU article (and everything else related to Chris Langan). In light of this and the other specific deceptive tactics outlined by Tim Smith on the AfD review page, this user should be permanently banned. DrL 14:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to have become a massive campaign now to thoroughly discredit me: if any passing admins could do something about it, I would be grateful. "Singlemindedness", DrL? Compare your editing history and mine...see how many different articles I have worked on, look at the article I am busy with in my sandbox etc. Drl, on the other hand has only edited articles to do with Langan, as has been pointed out by many over the past few days (not that that isn't her right, of course). And as for "deceptiveness"...Tim Smith never said I was being deceptive, he actually expressed willingness to work with me because I seemed the most co-operative among the editors who wished the CTMU to go. I think "deceptive", DrL, might however be used to describe linking to an out of date editing history, as you have done above. I am not making mayhem, but trying to make Wikipedia a legitimately better encyclopaedia, not by filling it with vanispamcruftisement, but by cleaning up articles that need help, writing new ones on neglected topics, and so on. And I actually apologised to DrL (see her talk page) for if what I have done has caused upset, because I strongly believe DrL is personally involved in many of these articles (I could be wrong, but an apology is not out of place, even then). Please stop this nonsense now, DrL. Byrgenwulf 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Byrgenwulf, you have been outed for exactly what you are, an anti-Langan critic using Wikipedia to carry out a personal vendetta and making a mockery of the project in the process. Anyone can examine your contribution history and read about your underhanded tactics on the AfD review page. They can also read your comments to others ...
Bergenwulf to Tox on this page: "The CTMU and its proponents have blown their chances with me now, after Asmodeus' slanderous comments and lies about me."
Asmodeus wrote nothing "slanderous" [sic] about you except to point out your many mistakes that gave you away as a philosophical neophyte. You have discredited only yourself. DrL 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "It is impossible for me to comprehend how mature and highly intelligent men can involve themselves in such detrimental "boy/fights" of this sort; specially, when they are "supposed" to be HiQ'ers. This personal barrage leaves no one untouched of scorn. It is absurd to delete anyones serious work on these undignified grounds.You must bear in mind that: a theory is just a theory, a theory it is. Joely R. Villalba" KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.84.176 ( talk • contribs)
  • Thank you for stopping by; please discuss here rather than the article page. DrL 15:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems that this comment by an anon using IP address 4.234.84.176 was moved here from Talk:Mega Foundation by DrL ( talk · contribs), who has done this several times (see her contribs). I think this was inappropriate since it amounts to taking someone's comment out of context. --- CH 23:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Newbie's first day - Welcome to Wikipedia! DrL 17:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
If DrL is implying that Massmato is a sock created only to vote in this AfD, in fact it appears that this user voted in a number of AfD's that day.--- CH 23:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Mega Foundation, then copyedit mercilessly. I don't care which is the target article, but they appear more or less notable, given some press coverage. Luna Santin 17:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is a reasonable suggestion as there is a lot of overlap. I would suggest Mega Foundation as the main article and The Ultranet as a redirect to Mega Foundation. DrL 19:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society
--- CH 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment User CH/Hillman evidently fails to understand what a "shill" is. Strangely, the definition is right there on the Wikipedia page to which he links. Here's how "shill" is defined on that page: "A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer."
The author of this article is not selling goods or services; the Ultranet is a project of the Mega Foundation, a nonprofit (charitable purpose) entity obliged to spend everything it takes in on its own maintenance. Nor is the author playing the role of seller or customer. Thus, the "shilling" allegation is just an abuse of the deletion process.
The Wikipedia page continues: "In some cases, the members of an organization or the employees of a company may monitor and/or participate in public discussions and groups. Such people are not shills, since they don't attempt to mislead others." Anyone accusing anyone else of "shilling" would therefore need to present evidence that misleading information has been included in the article. If that were going to happen, it would already have happened.
Wikipedia's anti-shilling guidelines are intended to prevent hucksters from using Wikipedia to fatten their bank accounts and enhance their personal prospects and the value of their personal interests. But that clearly isn't the case here. So please desist with the abusive and unsubstantiated allegations. Asmodeus 19:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Asmodeus, if you had read further in that article, you would find here the following sentence: "In online discussion media, such as message boards, discussion forums, and newsgroups, shills may pose as independent experts, satisfied consumers, or “innocent” parties with specific opinions in order to further the interests of an organization in which they have an interest, such as a commercial vendor or special-interest group." Now, whatever the articles of incorporation of the Mega foundation might be, and even taking into account that Wikipedia is not a message board or a "blog" (despite how some people choose to use it), the MF surely counts as a "special interest group". Therefore, someone who is affiliated to that group, particularly in an official capacity, and acts in a forum such as Wikipedia in manner promoting the interests of that group (like demanding that it have an article about it when it hardly merits it), without declaring their interests, is shilling. By definition. Moreover, DrL was caught posting links in the "Chicken or the Egg" article, posting links to the Mega Foundation website which ask for money to view (proof: here is her edit; this is the link she posted). Now, I'm not sure where that money goes to, whether it is the Mega Foundation's coffers or Langan's own pocket, and nor do I care. But I do think that this action constitutes a gross abuse of Wikipedia for monetary gain. And, once again, shilling, as well as "link spam", Vanispamcruftisement and countless other offences. Byrgenwulf 20:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Oh, please. I'd linked to that page because it had a table of contents which showed that the cited article was indeed included. DrL 20:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Of course, if the link I posted above suddenly goes dead or changes in nature (like by not soliciting money anymore), we'll all know what's happened...but that's fine, because I have captured a copy of it. But, why not just link straight to the table of contents, then? Byrgenwulf 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That would have been my preference, but the TOC was a pdf page that did not identify the book. So I linked to the page that talked about the book, and also linked to the TOC. True, there was a link to purchase the book. But I couldn't find a better link and wanted to add a citation. WP:AGF, please. DrL 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
That's a feeble explanation, I think. The link in question wasn't just some obscure little button on the corner of the page, the sole purpose of that page is to sell copies of Langan's book: right in the middle is a big $10 price tag, with Paypal information, etc. etc. Right at the bottom is a tiny little link to the ToC, which is clearly an ancillary purpose of that page. And I find it very difficult to assume good faith, DrL, in light of the amount of "good faith" you have assumed about me and my intentions. Nonetheless, I merely have merely stated facts: other users may interpret them however they wish. Byrgenwulf 20:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Participants in this AfD should be aware that its initiator is engaging in vendetta. User Byrgenwulf registered at Wikipedia on July 2, 2006, three weeks ago, and launched an all-out editing/AfD attack on Christopher Langan, his notable and widely-publicized theory the CTMU (which Byrgenwulf irrationally disputes, but was quickly shown not to comprehend), the Mega Foundation, the Ultranet, and so on ad nauseam. Byrgenwulf even hurled himself into an AfD against an IQ society to which Langan once belonged, within minutes of its inception through the offices of a prior confederate. To illicitly gain support for his personal blitzkrieg against the CTMU, Byrgenwulf transparently misled and recruited people sympathetic to his viewpoint from areas of the Wikipedia web complex not directly related to the topic of that article, tarring it in the process. This is called "abuse of the deletion process", and it violates Wikipedia policy.
User Byrgenwulf is in the deceptive habit of demanding verification for everything he disputes - that is, everything he can dispute - until he manages to identify a verificative link which he can paint as violating some aspect of Wikipedia policy (all nonprofit entities solicit donations; they need to do so in order to survive, and nobody is allowed to personally profit from this). This gives him a pretext for expanding his attack, preferably with accompaniment by an unwitting chorus which he has actively misled and recruited from inappropriate sectors of the Wikipedia community. Regarding Byrgenwulf's spurious "shilling" allegations, people who post articles on Wikipedia are virtually all interested in the topics of those articles, and therefore belong to "special interest groups" associated with those topics. Ordinarily, they do not post a detailed confession regarding the exact nature of their interest; it is sufficient that they maintain neutrality, verify their edits, and maintain relevance to the topic at hand. User Byrgenwulf is simply attempting, once again, to twist and misrepresent standard practice at Wikipedia in order to gain a dishonest advantage over his victims.
This is all now a matter of record. With all due respect, I ask that Byrgenwulf at least try to tell the truth (if that is possible). Asmodeus 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Anyone concerned by the frantic bluster above is invited to look at the Mega Foundation AfD for my comments. Byrgenwulf 22:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply


This is very important to know, and yes, as Byrgenwulf himself says, it is very easy to see for oneself that what Asmodeus is saying is true. Just follow a bit of Byrgenwulf's history. Where one is coming from tells us enough about where it leads to follow him. StevanMD 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - brenneman {L} 02:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mega Foundation

Mega Foundation is up for deletion as an advert for a non-notable society, as well as probable vanity. 712 Google hits, many of which are unrelated to this society, despite its alleged press coverage (the citations in the article all point to society's webpage anyway). See also this AfD. My advice is:

  • Delete Byrgenwulf 10:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN homebrew society. Self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a list of things made up at school Mensa meetings. -- GWO
  • Delete spam, non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 12:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - This is a notable organization. I've added citations to verify that. DrL 13:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
CommentThree out of those four citations are not about the society, but about one of its founders. When I suggested to DrL that the society article be merged with the founder's bio, she said that it would make more sense to delete the article altogether than merge it(see the talk page). That's why it's here. Byrgenwulf 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - While Langan is the focus of some of these articles, the foundation is mentioned in each by name. I just included this to establish verification from an outside source. This is a non-profit foundation and not a high IQ society. DrL 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment and? Just because the foundation is mentioned doesn't make it notable. It just proves that it exists. BigHaz 23:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. No comment. danielmryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.35.112 ( talk • contribs)
    • AfD is not a vote. If you do not say why you think this should be kept, the closing admin will be well within his/her rights to ignore your recommendation altogether. — Haeleth Talk 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Langan. Do not keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I would like to make a note here that some individuals are targeting Chris Langan and any group that has any connection to him. They have already succeeded in deleting the CTMU article and the Mega Society article. They are also trying to delete The Ultranet, Mega Foundation, Ronald Hoeflin, Nathan Haselbauer and possibly others. It doesn't seem right that one clique should have such a great influence on Wikipedia. DrL 18:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That sounds rather paranoid, and doesn't accord with the facts. I nominated this and the Ultranet, while other people nominated those other articles entirely unbeknownst to be. What I think has happened is that the CTMU fiasco has opened a can of worms; all the non-notable, vanity-ridden articles in this particular "genre" are being rooted out by all manner of people - not a "clique" - and listed for deletion because they are not encyclopaedic. Byrgenwulf 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It doesn't sound paranoid at all. Why don't you tell me why Prometheus_Society was not attacked, but The Ultranet was? Similar groups, but The Ultranet is larger and was mentioned in several press articles (whereas PS was not). (Whatever happened to WP:V???) DrL 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment DrL, no-one and nothing is being "attacked" here. I don't really care about high IQ societies, personally, but I do care about Wikipedia being used by people to glorify themselves, their lovers, or their organisations by writing articles about them and then demanding they stay here on such tenuous grounds. I run a small non-profit organisation, and by the standards you are applying, DrL, I could write an article about it and put it here (it's been in the press a few times etc. etc.). But I don't, because I have self-respect, and because I am not vain enough to need Wikipedia to somehow "legitimise" or "verify" my organisation, even if I make the feeble excuse that "the article is to inform people": my organisation does not merit an encyclopaedia article at the moment, and I have the self confidence to admit that. I think the dignified thing to do is to wait until someone else sees the group as having sufficient import to merit an encyclopaedia article about it: this isn't a directory, a search engine, or a "who's who"; it is a reference work, a tertiary source. And, an encyclopaedia article about an NPO should discuss its myriad achievements and the contributions it has made to society (that determines its "notability"). I see none of that in the Mega Foundation article, which simply reads like a blurb in a business directory, with links to a website at the bottom. If you're so concerned, DrL, about all the other articles on these groups, why don't you nominate them for an AfD? Unless, that is, this "DrL" account is solely restricted to commenting on a certain individual, his ideas, and his clubs. Byrgenwulf 06:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This is an objective entry about this organization. The reason that I kept it brief was to maintain that objectivity, keep it informational and not make it sound like a promo. Your post above is ad hominem and out of line. DrL 11:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Please tell me in what way what I wrote above is an "ad hominem" and "out of line"? I certainly didn't intend that. Byrgenwulf 12:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It is impossible for me to comprehend how mature and highly intelligent men can involve themselves in such detrimental "boy/fights" of this sort; specially, when they are "supposed" to be HiQ'ers. This personal barrage leaves no one untouched of scorn. It is absurd to delete anyones serious work on these undignified grounds.You must bear in mind that: a theory is just a theory, a theory it is. Joely R. Villalba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.90.44 ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia is not a repository of people's "theories". It is an encyclopaedia, which means it is a tertiary source. But I must say, I agree with the comment on the "high IQ" subculture's behaviour: I would never have expected this...please, though, do not make the mistake of thinking that everyone with a high IQ is necessarily involved with these clubs or their petty squabbling for precedence; these groups have a tiny fraction of the membership they statistically could have - maybe that's why they feel they need to use an encyclopaedia to advertise. Byrgenwulf 06:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to the admins ... and anyone here to vote or discuss. Please consider the history and actions of this AfD nominator. As you can see from Byrgenwulf's contribution history, his very first edit to Wikipedia was on July 2, 2006. He made a few innocuous edits (and patiently waited a week) before beginning his totally obsessive onslaught against the CTMU article (and everything else related to Chris Langan, including many high IQ societies and high IQ individuals). In light of this evidence of his single-mindedness and the other specific deceptive tactics that are outlined by Tim Smith on the AfD review page, this user should be permanently banned for making a mockery of Wikipedia's AfD policy and creating general mayhem. DrL 14:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Response: This seems to have become a massive campaign now to thoroughly discredit me: if any passing admins could do something about it, I would be grateful. "Singlemindedness", DrL? Compare your editing history and mine...see how many different articles I have worked on, look at the article I am busy with in my sandbox etc. Drl, on the other hand has only edited articles to do with Langan, as has been pointed out by many over the past few days (not that that isn't her right, of course). And as for "deceptiveness"...Tim Smith never said I was being deceptive, he actually expressed willingness to work with me because I seemed the most co-operative among the editors who wished the CTMU to go. I think "deceptive", DrL, might however be used to describe linking to an out of date editing history, as you have done above. I am not making mayhem, but trying to make Wikipedia a legitimately better encyclopaedia, not by filling it with vanispamcruftisement, but by cleaning up articles that need help, writing new ones on neglected topics, and so on. And I actually apologised to DrL (see her talk page) for if what I have done has caused upset, because I strongly believe DrL is personally involved in many of these articles (I could be wrong, but an apology is not out of place, even then). Please stop this nonsense now, DrL. Byrgenwulf 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Byrgenwulf, you have been outed for exactly what you are, an anti-Langan critic using Wikipedia to carry out a personal vendetta and making a mockery of the project in the process. Anyone can examine your contribution history and read about your underhanded tactics on the AfD review page. They can also read your comments to others ...
Bergenwulf to Tox on this page: "The CTMU and its proponents have blown their chances with me now, after Asmodeus' slanderous comments and lies about me."
Asmodeus wrote nothing "slanderous" [sic] about you except to point out your many mistakes that gave you away as a philosophical neophyte. You have discredited only yourself. DrL 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh rubbish. I merely refused to indulge Asmodeus in a proper discussion on the issues at that particular time, leaving him to have the last word in many cases, which may create the illusion that he was right; discussions on philosophy of science take much space and time, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to host them. Moreover, many of the condescending remarks Asmodeus made about me were actually on points which may be disputed (I merely chose not to dispute them there, but have expressed my willingness to do elsewhere). This comment by a world renowned mathematician to one of Asmodeus' sneers illustrates my point that Asmodeus is not necessarily right in his reading of the situation. Byrgenwulf 19:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

"It is impossible for me to comprehend how mature and highly intelligent men can involve themselves in such detrimental "boy/fights" of this sort; specially, when they are "supposed" to be HiQ'ers. This personal barrage leaves no one untouched of scorn. It is absurd to delete anyones serious work on these undignified grounds.You must bear in mind that: a theory is just a theory, a theory it is. Joely R. Villalba" KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.84.176 ( talk • contribs)

  • Thank you for stopping by; please discuss here rather than the article's talk page. DrL 15:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with The Ultranet, then copyedit mercilessly. I don't care which is the target article, but they appear more or less notable. Luna Santin 17:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is a reasonable suggestion as there is a lot of overlap. I would suggest Mega Foundation as the main article and The Ultranet as a redirect to Mega Foundation. DrL 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per luna santin. - Quiddity 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. This org doesn't seem notable to me, and I am concerned about possible manipulation of this AfD vote. I note that from her contribs and from other internal evidence, DrL ( talk · contribs) appears to be "Dr. Gina Lynne LoSasso", to whom the megafoundation.org website is registered. If so, I think it would be well for these users to disclose their identity, if for no other reason than to prevent giving the impression that they are shilling. To prevent possible misunderstanding, note that I acknowledge that it is not always inappropriate for X to edit and article about himself/herself/her organization, but in such cases, in my view, common sense and good manners dictate that X should disclose his/her identity. I believe that good edits will be easily recognized as such. But here we are talking about edits which seem to several users including myself to be misleading or unbalanced, and in such cases it may be appropriate to inquire about the IRL identity of the users who made those edits. DrL complained " I would like to make a note here that some individuals are targeting Chris Langan and any group that has any connection to him" This remark suggests--- at least to me--- that she may not fully appreciate the magnitude of the problem at Wikipedia with vanity cruft. I see no reason to think that anyone is "targeting high IQ organizations", but I do see good reason to try to remove vanity cruft. I think this goal would be best served in the case of Mega Foundation by deleting the article. --- CH 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Please see also two AfD votes for related articles (both now deleted)
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society
and see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ultranet for a related current AfD. --- CH 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That is not my name and I would very much appreciate it if you take your baseless accusations elsewhere. For your information, this was the fifth initial I tried when I set up my account. But thank you very much for asking. Wikipedia also thanks you for coming by, casting your vote and adding your misinformation to the pool. Hail, Wikipedia! DrL 23:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
DrL, if I am wrong about that, please provide enough verifiable information about your IRL identity to convince me. This is not an accusation I make lightly and if I am wrong I would certainly want the opportunity to correct the record! The problem is that the internal evidence is to my mind so strong, and your denial so weak, that I don't feel that in good faith I can simply accept your denial without being presented with any contrary evidence. --- CH 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Enough, already. User CH/Hillman has no right to demand anyone's personal identity, and evidently fails to understand what a "shill" is. Strangely, the definition is right there on the Wikipedia page to which he linked above. Here's how "shill"is defined on that page: "A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer."
The person who wrote this article is neither selling goods and services - the Mega Foundation is a nonprofit (charitable purpose) entity obligated to spend everything it takes in on its own maintenance, with nothing left over to put in anyone's pocket - nor in any way playing the role of "seller" or "customer", "enthusiastically" or otherwise. All he/she is doing is describing the Mega Foundation as it is described in its own articles of incorporation. So "shilling" is out of the question. It's just a nasty accusation designed to abuse the deletion process.
The Wikipedia page continues: "In some cases, the members of an organization or the employees of a company may monitor and/or participate in public discussions and groups. Such people are not shills, since they don't attempt to mislead others."
Now, here's an important news flash for Hillman and those who are citing his abusive opinions. Here at Wikipedia, using a handle is not considered "misleading others". If it were, then 99% of the people on this site would be "misleading others". So to establish "shilling", we'd need to find some piece of misleading information in the article. But CH/Hillman doesn't seem to have done that.
Wikipedia's anti-shilling guidelines are sound. They prevent hucksters from using Wikipedia to fatten their bank accounts and enhance their personal prospects and the value of their personal interests. But that clearly isn't the case here. If anyone wishes to argue otherwise, the first thing he/she needs to do is substantiate his/her allegations.
But of course, if that were going to happen, it would already have happened. Asmodeus 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Asmodeus, if you had read further in that article, you would find here the following sentence: "In online discussion media, such as message boards, discussion forums, and newsgroups, shills may pose as independent experts, satisfied consumers, or “innocent” parties with specific opinions in order to further the interests of an organization in which they have an interest, such as a commercial vendor or special-interest group." Now, whatever the articles of incorporation of the Mega foundation might be, and even taking into account that Wikipedia is not a message board or a "blog" (despite how some people choose to use it), the MF surely counts as a "special interest group". Therefore, someone who is affiliated to that group, particularly in an official capacity, and acts in a forum such as Wikipedia in manner promoting the interests of that group (like demanding that it have an article about it when it hardly merits it), without declaring their interests, is shilling. By definition. Moreover, DrL was caught posting links in the "Chicken or the Egg" article, posting links to the Mega Foundation website which ask for money to view (proof: here is her edit; this is the link she posted). Now, I'm not sure where that money goes to, whether it is the Mega Foundation's coffers or Langan's own pocket, and nor do I care. But I do think that this action constitutes a gross abuse of Wikipedia for monetary gain. And, once again, shilling, as well as "link spam", Vanispamcruftisement and countless other offences. Byrgenwulf 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Oh, please. I'd linked to that page because it had a table of contents which showed that the cited article was indeed included. DrL 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
See the Ultranet AfD for my response, I'm not going to have a parallel conversation. The page itself contains no table of contents, merely a link to one, and so I do not understand why DrL could not have linked to that page instead. Byrgenwulf 20:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That would have been my preference, but the TOC was a pdf page that did not identify the book. So I linked to the page that talked about the book, and also linked to the TOC. True, there was a link to purchase the book. But I couldn't find a better link and wanted to add a citation. WP:AGF, please. DrL 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User Byrgenwulf has already been caught massively abusing the deletion process. He has a blatant vendetta against Christopher Langan and everything for which Langan stands and with which he is associated. (Byrgenwulf has nominated a number of articles for deletion in the last several days, and Langan is the common denominator in all of them.) That is what he is doing here, and how this AfD was motivated. This user (Byrgenwulf) is in the deceptive habit of demanding verification for everything he disputes - that is, everything he can dispute - until he manages to identify a verificative link which he can paint as violating some aspect of Wikipedia policy (all nonprofit entities solicit donations; they need to do so in order to survive, and nobody is allowed to personally profit from this). This gives him a pretext for expanding his attack, preferably with accompaniment by an unwitting chorus which he has actively misled and recruited from inappropriate sectors of the Wikipedia community. Regarding Byrgenwulf's spurious "shilling" allegations, people who post articles on Wikipedia are virtually all interested in the topics of those articles, and therefore belong to "special interest groups" associated with those topics. Ordinarily, they do not post a detailed confession regarding the exact nature of their interest; it is sufficient that they maintain neutrality, verify their edits, and maintain relevance to the topic at hand. User Byrgenwulf is simply attempting, once again, to twist and misrepresent standard practice at Wikipedia in order to gain a dishonest advantage over his victims. (What a surprise.) Asmodeus 21:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Once again, Asmodeus, you are blatantly wrong, and seemingly trying desperately to distort the facts and attack my character because I have raised uncomfortable issues. Not all the articles I have nominated for deletion have been related to Langan - unless he is also into " chaos magic" and a collaborator in the development of Hyperwarp 6D, another crackpot theory of everything which just got deleted (much less acrimoniously than the CTMU - in fact no-one opposed its deletion). I merely wish to see Wikipedia cleared of the plague of vanispamcruftisement from which it has been suffering, and it seems many other users also feel that its purpose is not to provide a worldwide open source "blog" for people to post their achievements here. And Wikipedia is also not here as a platform for NPOs, no matter how noble their aims, to solicit funding. Byrgenwulf 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It is also insulting to all the other participants in this AfD to insinuate that I have been manipulating them and to call them an "unwitting chorus" as you did, as if they couldn't make their minds up for themselves. I would certainly take offence at that. Byrgenwulf 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm simply informing people of the facts. Byrgenwulf registered at Wikipedia on July 2, 2006, three weeks ago, and launched an all-out editing/AfD attack on Christopher Langan, his notable and widely-publicized theory the CTMU (which Byrgenwulf was quickly shown not to comprehend), the Mega Foundation, the Ultranet, and so on ad nauseam. Byrgenwulf even hurled himself into an AfD against an IQ society to which Langan once belonged, within minutes of its inception through the offices of a prior confederate. To illicitly gain support for his personal blitzkrieg against the CTMU, Byrgenwulf transparently misled and recruited people sympathetic to his viewpoint from areas of the Wikipedia web complex not directly related to the topic of that article, tarring it in exactly the way we see here. This is all a matter of record. With all due respect, I ask that Byrgenwulf at least try to tell the truth. Asmodeus 21:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Are you really insinuating that the members of Wikipedia:Project Physics are all blithering idiots who can so easily be misled by such a stupid, incompetent fool as you make me out to be? For example, the eminent mathematician Arthur Rubin, who said that the CTMU would be credible only among pseudo-intellectuals, and caught you out on grounds of factual errancy in one of your other rants against me? I have never been "shown not to comprehend" that silly "theory", because I have not wanted to indulge in a debate on it here (my snide remarks on the talk page notwithstanding), but I have repeatedly extended an invitation to anyone willing to defend it to discuss it elsewhere, an offer which has been ignored, repeatedly. Moreover, my efforts in the CTMU article led to the discovery of a "walled garden" of vanity, advertising and illicit soliciting of funds (the "chicken and egg" article wasn't the only place that fundraising link was posted), none of which Wikipedia exists to support. Looking at the contributions of DrL and Asmodeus should prove that they are both solely interested, here at Wikipedia, in editing articles pertaining to Langan and his great and wondrous achievements. That is a matter of record; what Asmodeus has said is a matter of opinion, I am afraid, and a grossly slanted opinion at that. I would be ashamed of myself, if I were Asmodeus, carrying on like this. But perhaps that's just a peculiarity on my part. Byrgenwulf 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • You certainly succeeded in misleading some Wikipedia:Project Physics members. Again, this is a matter of record (you deliberately misrepresented a philosophical theory as a "pseudoscientific" theory of "physics" to them after being repeatedly corrected on that score). Arthur Rubin - who has not actually demonstrated any familiarlty with the CTMU - is apparently one of your unwitting victims. You certainly should be ashamed of yourself, if only for contriving to compromise the reputation of somebody being promoted, whether justifiably or not, as "an eminent mathematician". I would not have edited the CTMU article at all save for your discombobulated attack on it, and the same probably goes for others. You most certainly have been "shown not to comprehend" the CTMU, and yes indeed, it began right on the talk page for the original article. Not unrelatedly, there is just one thing the matter with your "repeated invitation" to "discuss the CTMU elsewhere": you clearly don't know enough about it to make it worth anyone's while, and you argue in such a way that such a discussion would be like trying to pin down a squirming eel. (Perhaps you could persuade Mr. Rubin to stake his reputation on such a discussion? Now, that might actually intrigue somebody.) Asmodeus 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't know Rubin from a bar of soap; moreover, I'm sure he has better ways to spend his time than disputing crackpot theories. Suffice it to say anyone bothered to read through all of this verbiage will soon come to understand what is afoot here, despite Asmodeus' ongoing rants. Byrgenwulf 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Hillman; WP:VSCA again. Love those reliable sources: Muscle & Fitness indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Langan article; this fails WP:ORG. -- McGeddon 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Langan or delete. No evidence this is in any way significant Just zis Guy you know? 12:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Massmatto 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep An informative and rather minimal article on a notable and well-verified topic. Asmodeus 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As for DrL's claim that these pages are being "attacked", they are being "attacked" because they are a walled garden of non-notable vanity pages. -- NORTH talk 22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above.-- Cúchullain t/ c 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above or merge as a second best but viable option. GassyGuy 06:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, clearly, as a walled garden of non-notable vanity. Some of the participants in this debate should be ashamed of their behaviour, naming no names. There's a very good study of British high-IQ societies somewhere that looks into just why so many of them end up as small, paranoid cliques with far-right, eugenicist ideas: I'll have to look that out some time. Vizjim 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Jesse E. Lane

Was de-prodded on the grounds that he's a professional hockey player, but he isn't. Both of the teams for which he's played, the Hull Olympiques and the Victoriaville Tigres, are junior teams, and for the past three years he's just been a college student. Does not meet the guidelines at WP:BIO, so delete. User:Angr 11:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, not notable. -- Missmarple 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm confused. The article states, "was selected by the Carolina Hurricanes in the National Hockey League Entry Draft." Is that not true? According to WP:BIO, "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league" are notable. Under those grounds, I think he should stay. A quick google search reveals Internet Hockey Database, Carolina Hurricanes, Hockey's Future, and CHL all support the claim that Lane was selected by the Carolina Hurricanes. Doesn't that qualify him under WP:BIO athlete guidelines? I'm afraid I don't know enough about hockey to pass judgment on any of this yet. Am I missing something? Scorpiondollprincess 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If he had ever actually taken the ice for the Hurricanes for even one game, I would say keep, but he didn't. This scenario has been discussed heavily with regard to baseball and football (soccer) players. He was drafted by a major team four years ago, but apparently ended his career after the 2003-04 season without ever making it out of the minors. (Note that the article cited above from "Hockey's Future" is dated 2002, which demonstrates the problems with crystal balling.) Fan-1967 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Fan1967. If he ever plays in the NHL, then by all means, write a new article on him (as this article is psychotically NPOV and advertise-y, if one can advertise for a hockey player). As of right now, he's non-notable. -- Kicking222 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hole in the doughnut effect

Google gives 13 hits for this term. Probably original research of some kind. -- Missmarple 11:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Bewitching, bothering and bewildering. Zargulon 12:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as original research. The confusing drafting appears to simply be discussing the consolidation effect that large stores/malls have on shopping habits but that's not got anything to do with doughnuts. MLA 12:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Incoherent claptrap. -- GWO
  • Keep this article is about an ACTUAL geographical term, it is taight in GCSE level Geography across the UK, simply deleting it because it returns few hits on google, or because it has "nothing to do with doughnuts" would be silly. ( Neostinker 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)) reply
    • Editors are of the opinion that it should be deleted because you have failed to cite any sources, and they have failed to find any sources. Verifiability is fundamental to what we do, here. If you really learned this in school, then you are in a prime position to cite the books that you learned it from. Please cite sources, as you were asked to a month ago. Uncle G 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V/ WP:RS; even if this is a legitimate term, the article would need a major rewrite. -- Kinu t/ c 13:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but clean up and probably rename. There is another term for this (at least in the US) in Real Estate marketing that I just can't put my finger on at the moment but I've heard it several times. It's a notable concept that deserves an article, it just needs to be cleaned up a bit. Agne 14:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. If this is a real geographical term, please cite some verifiable sources for it. Otherwise it looks far too much like original research to me. Scorpiondollprincess 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The Google test isn't the end-all indicator, but it does show that this subject most likely isn't verifiable. The way the article is written seems to confirm that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this seems to be just a specific example of urban decay. This article doesn't seem to have sufficient information to salvage and merge. And considering how little the term appears to be used, a redirect doesn't seem to make much sense. -- Whpq 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep but start again from scratch. Real term, however the article presents it too much in an OR manner. The term (or variation thereof) is also used in education in reference to an issue facing inner city school populations (the gist being younger families tend to move towards the suburbs, leaving a population "hole" that makes it difficult for inner city schools to find students, often leading to their closure). 23skidoo 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless references given. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep if references can be found -- and that should be a trivial case of anyone who is currently in secondary education in the UK opening up their geography textbook at the index and making a note of the relevant page numbers. Seriously, this is taught in every school in one of the major English-speaking countries. The article could be written more clearly, but deleting it just because it's not a term used on the internet would be stupid. See the similar case of the abortive Minibeast AfD -- another common term from British education that was nominated in a rather insensitive way by someone who assumed that any term they hadn't heard of must be nonsense. — Haeleth Talk 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That was not how this article was nominated, however. Uncle G 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If this is just a form of urban decay, wouldn't a redirect and maybe a paragraph on that article suffice? -- Missmarple 13:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I was at secondary school in Australia (hopefully still a "major English-speaking country") not too long ago and never learned this term in my geography classes. "Urban decay" and some of the other terms suggested here, most certainly, but not this one. BigHaz 03:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Sources have been added to this article now, proving that this is not original research and is infact taught at GCSE level. ( Neostinker 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)) reply
    • Please use {{ cite book}} and give the exact details (title, author, publisher, year, ISBN, and so forth) of the books. Uncle G 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per GWO ("incoherent claptrap"). -- NORTH talk 22:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

ElThrowball

Non notable beach game made up in June this year. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day (nor in this case out of school). -- RHaworth 11:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 07:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Buck de hock

Hoax ball game. Zero Google hits. Disputed prod and prod2. -- RHaworth 11:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - may not be hoax but fails WP:V, WP:OR and smacks of WP:NFT. Yomangani 12:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hoax. -- GWO
  • Delete It admits to being little known - so nn and/or unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 12:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: unverifiable, nn. -- The Anome 15:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as an unverifiable hoax. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete please it looks like a hoax to me too Yuckfoo 16:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Quiditch is more a real game than this. Delete as bupkes. — NM Chico 24 09:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 07:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

RealityReel.com

Delete. I had already prod'ed this with the reason Not a notable website per WP:WEB. No claim of notability, either. Alexa rank of 340,000. ... discospinster talk 11:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 07:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Inomanet

A private company which according to the article has not even been founded yet, has no Google hits, has no claim to notability, and has a rather disfunctional website, does not meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability/notability. This is an advertisement. Delete. Jim182 12:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Fatty

Not notable -- SJK 12:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per apparent WP:HOAX. Also, move the disambig page back to plain Fatty WilyD 13:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Scorpiondollprincess 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Possibly a hoax - Theres an IMDB listing, but that's easily to put spoof entries into than Wikipedia these days. Artw 14:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. One of the IMDB entries is playing the family dog in Moonlight Mile. The other is a cleaning lady. I highly doubt these two characters were portrayed by the same performer. Fan-1967 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom Jesussaves 22:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Scancoaches

Contested prod which does not seem to meet WP:CORP. Note that the page shares the same name as sole contributor, User:Scancoaches. MER-C 12:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Indian tap

WP:NOT - neologism and original research. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Google comes up with just over 300 hits, none of which (besides this article) use this meaning. Kafziel 12:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

XTV

The article may potentially be a hoax, but at the very least is not verifiable. Googling results in many hits for a porn network, but a variety of variations on XTV with other words failed to find any hint of this netwrk's existence. Whpq 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:V. I'm not sure I see WP:HOAX, but if so then I'd consider Strong Delete. Fails to cite verifiable sources at the very least. Scorpiondollprincess 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Apparent hoax, certainly unverifiable. Parent company doesn't seem to exist. The list of shows looks like every kids show or cartoon from the last ten years. A few are implausible: can you imagine a children's network running Tripping the Rift? I don't think so. Fan-1967 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Massmatto 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

David Arcadian

Artist of questionable notability and verifiability; just 9 unique Google hits for his name, some of which appear to be irrelevant (other people with the same name). Clearly a vanity page from the user name of the creator, and stuffed with POV puff ("his extraordinary talent" etc). Creator removed all tags (including the wikify and references tags). ~ Matticus  T C 13:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Rockstar Memoirs

WP:CORP. Looks like SPAM. Google links point mostly to ads. No doubt it's real, but I don't think it rates an article. Rklawton 13:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Shredd and Ragan

This article had previously been speedied as a non-notable group. This is just a reposting of the same article. Rklawton 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Delete completely non-notable, and it reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted article. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment As I understand it, recreating a speedied article simply means it's "challenged" and subject to XfD if still appropriate - as it is in this case. Rklawton 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The show is notable, but the article is written as an add... -- T-rex 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The Shredd and Ragan show should have its own article on Wikipedia, as they have been on Buffalo's airwaves for many years. However, the content of the article should be modified, perhaps to include the history of the show and what they have done in the past in addition to what their current features are. -- Streetsabre 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Jaranda wat's sup 06:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Austin High School

Article gives no evidence of notability Icewolf34 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I fall heavily on the side of inclusionism, and don't see how keeping this article around until it can be expanded hurts Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not paper; obscure content isn't harmful; all schools are notable, et cetera; all the usual arguments — I won't waste your time with that. This is my alma mater, and though I haven't edited the article, I would hate to see it deleted. But I'm very busy and don't have a lot of time to expand it at present, and as it's been almost a decade since I graduated, I feel I lack the perspective to give it a fresh and current treatment.
As to its notability, AHS does produce a lot of National Merit Scholars (I was one) and does excel in test scores. It offers many advanced classes and programs (it was recently accredited with an International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme). Its sports teams have at times won statewide acclaim. But about the most notable thing about it from my perspective is its excellent band program, which involves an astounding portion of the student body (about a quarter of it in my day), many of whom are also the academic leaders of the school (most of the National Honor Society is in band). The concert bands have the longest string of consecutive superior ratings at state contest in Alabama (at forty years), and the marching band routinely excels in competitions in the highly competitive arenas of Tennessee and Georgia. The bands have performed for governors and presidents. If anyone else thinks this is notable, I would be glad to write it up and add it to the article.
I don't think this article is a lost cause. Austin High School is at least as notable as any other high school that's been allowed an article on Wikipedia (though I realize this is a contentious issue). It's one of only two major public high schools in operation in Decatur, Alabama, and has involved thousands of Decatur residents in its over forty years of operation. I think there's a good bit to say about this school, and its article could be helped a great deal by some love and care by a more recent graduate. If no such person comes along, I will do some research as soon as I'm able and expand it myself. — LonelyPilgrim 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - a high school just "being" does not make it notable. Alumni, major events, long history (>=50 years), etc would help. -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How is nominating a high school a disruption of Wikipedia? There is no consesus on whether high schools are notable or not, so an AFD nom is not unreasonable. I would suggest you please assume good faith in the future. Wickethewok 19:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Not to mention that the article at time of nomination was less than half its current size, all of four lines long. Icewolf34 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It is disruptive in my opinion as well. No verifiable high school article has been deleted for almost two years now. Two years. Get over it and and find a new method of "helping" this encyclopedia. Silensor 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd like to remind Golfcam to assume good faith, and I'd especially like to remind Silensor to avoid personal attacks. If Icewolf34 feels the school is non-notable, it is completely within his right to nominate it for deletion (just as it is right for you to argue against deletion). Icewolf is absolutely trying to help Wikipedia, and your condescension is much, much more of a hindrance to WP than his AfD nomination. (Note that I'm voting keep on this article, so my above statements are in defense of the nominator and of WP's core policies, not in defense of an opinion.) -- Kicking222 22:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Please quote precisely where Silensor made a "personal attack", I do not see such an attack on anyone, and I would suggest you take your own suggestion and assume good faith when reading Silensor's response. I think it is rather hard to suggest that saying "Get over it" is somehow a "personal attack". If so, I submit that you claiming that Silensor was engaged in "condescension" is in itself a personal attack. Your argument that the nominator is "within his right to nominate" is specious. As I have noted in months long since gone by, notability or the lack thereof is not, and never has been a valid criterion for the deletion of a high school article. Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD clearly states: Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion. WP:DP nowhere states or indicates that "non-notability" or "importance" is a "valid grounds for deletion" of a high school (or similar) article. If one reads the policy in the light of the fact that not a single, verifiable high school article has been deleted via the AfD/VfD processes in the course of the past 2 years worth of "discussions", I would humbly submit that nominating high school articles for deletion on the grounds that they are "non-notable" comes very, very, very close to a violation of standing policy - if not indeed constituting a violation of said policy. Might I suggest that if you are going to speak out "in defense of core policies" that a more precise reading of them be made before wildly suggesting that any and all nominations are somehow "rightful".-- Nicodemus75 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per silensor.   ALKIVAR ™ 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KeepI really do not understand why this article should be deleted. Austin High School and Decatur High School, are considered to of the best High Schools in the state of Alabama. To say that Austin is not notable is crazy.
    Austin's band program is outstanding. Not as outstanding as Decatur High School's, but second in the state, only behind Decatur High. I attend Decatur High School, and I believe that it should be kept. Our current band director, who has never gotten anything less than a superior rating at State attended Austin High. As LonelyPilgrim has said, Austin competes well with bands from Tennessee and Georgia. I am in Decatur's marching band and I have seen Austin in action. The Tennessee school practice marching band year round, and Austin beat one of them out in the Grissom Band Competition in 2005.
    Also, one of the best sax players in the state just graduated from Austin. Both Decatur City High Schools ARE considered notable by any standards, and should both be considered great. AlaGuy 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Look, although I don't feel that being an IB school or having a good band program really merits inclusion in Wikipedia, that information certainly pushes the article in that direction. Why don't you add these things to the page, with citations, instead of just bringing them up in the AfD? The nomination was due to "no evidence of notability," not an argument that high school absolutely isn't notable. And yes, the IB information was added after the initial nomination. And no, that doesn't change my mind, although it's a step in the right direction. Icewolf34 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • While I strongly disagree with your assertion that this article does not demonstrate notability, know that notability is not a requirement for inclusion. Wikipedia:Notability is not an accepted policy, not even a guideline, it is an essay. We do not delete articles about high schools for the same reason we do not delete articles about a small town, population 8. Since AFD is not intended to be an avenue for cleanup, please consider adding schools which you do not find interesting or "notable" to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools page rather than clogging up this place with another dead end nomination. Silensor 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sounds notable to me. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Whoopy doo just another school. So school bands are notable now? Catchpole 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Offering the International Baccalaureate program is notable. Yamaguchi先生 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't believe that all schools are inherently notable, but the vast majority of high schools are. In particular, this school's article currently asserts, in my opinion, more than sufficient notability. -- Kicking222 22:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clear precedent and consensus has been established over the past 2 years to keep high schools/secondary schools on wikipedia.-- Nicodemus75 02:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per precedent visible at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive. -- Rob 06:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — Nice article, although a little history would help. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 17:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Delete - NN. No personal attacks, ever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. I'm not sure that this article is a 'personal attack'. Since this is a "discussion" about reaching consensus on whether or not to delete this article, I can only assume your otherwise non-sequitor statement about "No personal attacks, ever" must in some obscure fashion refer to the article itself. I suppose it is always good to be reminded of policy, but I think that this is hardly the place to do so.-- Nicodemus75 00:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Good start to this high school article. -- JJay 16:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom. Capit 17:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As above, it is disruptive to Wikipedia and trouble-starting to ever think about deleting a high school. Capit 17:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Several notable claims are documented within the article, I see no need to erase this. RFerreira 21:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Vegas7Casino.com

Non-notable online casino that does not meet WP:WEB. Seems to be mere advertising. Delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 19:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

CCC Shelter

While this may well be verifiable, it's a small building, a shelter in a park. Its notability is entirely based on the fact that it's one of the 79,000 entries in the US National register of historic places. If we have an article on every building worldwide which is as "historic" as this one, we'll have a million such articles. Note that I'm nominating this to some extent to see if this entire category of articles is worth keeping, we have many other articles on "historic" cabins and such Xyzzyplugh 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - presumably there's a good reason for this being listed as an historic site. Having a milion articles shouldn't be an issue so long as each such site has some historical signifigance. -- Whpq 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, if it is on the National Register of Historic Places then notability should be implicit. -- TheFarix ( Talk) 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It's notable enough, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so space concerns aren't nearly as big an issue. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Combination Shelter which is how it's listed on the National Register Dlyons493 Talk 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Regarding Combination Shelter, I did create a redirect from that to CCC Shelter. However, this structure is definitely not known locally as the Combination Shelter, nor is that how it is listed on Pokagon State Park materials (let me try to find an online version). Note also that the National Register gives an 'aka' as "CCC Shelter". MrHarman 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable criteria works for me per TheFarix above. If only there was one for schools :) -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Abstain, as creator of the article and photo. I myself have wondered about the idea of creating 79,000 National Register of Historic Places articles. It seems a trifle much to my mind (let's see, at 2 per day it would take 100 years), but there have been discussions over at Talk:National Register of Historic Places which can be summarized: "The fact that they are listed as a historical place says they are notable." MrHarman 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Space is not an issue for Wikipedia and since i beleive it is notable (but perhaps warrenting expansion) it is my recommendation to keep it.- (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 20:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Press kit

A dictdef that was transwikied more than a year ago. Anonymously deprodded. Kimchi.sg 14:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete if it's already transwiki'd. WilyD 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Press kits are an important part of film advertising. The majority of movie pictures that we see in newspapers or magazines come from these. It could be useful to explain the different parts of a common press kit (Anatomy of a Press Kit if you will) and give examples. Also, although I can't remember any off the top of my head, some movies have had particularly clever press kits which might deserve mention. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this has potential for expansion beyond dictdefs. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 12:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree this has potential. Press kits are important not in just film, but also literature, music, and other arts. -- Aguerriero ( talk) 21:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't think this is a dictionary term. Also one of the fair use copyright standards on Wikipedia is {{Promotional}} which reads: "...released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as ... in a press kit" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cott12 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep definatly as per Aguerriero - (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 1 Corinthians 13. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

1 Corinthians 13:1

This article is not about a notable verse in the Bible. If this article was not original research, it may qualify to be moved into an article about speaking in tounges. As is, this is not a notable subject and is nominated for deletion. PsYoP78 15:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and redirect to 1 Corinthians 13. The article is trash - but there really is no need to have another contravertial debate about the notability of Bible verses (an utterly subjective criterion). Perhaps someone can write a verifiable NPOV article on this single verse later, or perhaps not (there is certainly plently of accademic material on it). Anyway, redirects are cheap. -- Aoratos 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 1 Corinthians 13 as a probable search term. Anything that is not in the 1 Corinthians 13 article and is not original research can be merged. Unfortunately, it's not notable and appears to be original research, so it cannot stand alone. Srose (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above. The other is clearly getting kept anyway.-- Chaser T 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect title of article indicates it is just about verse 1. Move any valid into into the main article -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment thought given the state of the main article and the current AfD discussion itself is having, I am not sure what, if anything will be salvaged. Which may not be a bad thing. -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 CAUTION: Dead End, Right Lane Ends, etc. Seriously, deleted. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Unusual road signs

This survived, amazingly enough, a request for deletion in February 2006. The same problems that existed then exist now, and it looks unlikely they will be rectified. Originally, this was forked from the more-respectable Place names considered unusual article because road signs weren't considered places. Now, it stands as a beacon for unencyclopedic original research. Its lone "unusual road sign" - which relies on the 69 sex position and the euphemism relating beavers to vaginas - sets the stage for an intolerably immature article about road signs that make people giggle. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 21:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Downtown (Basketball)

This is probably a neologism. -- Sbluen 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I think this is a protoneo. I've heard this one on games. SynergeticMaggot 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I've heard the term mentioned a number of times in commentary during basketball games on Tv. Wildthing61476 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, should be (and sort of is) mentioned in Three-point field goal, and nothing here worth merging. Possibly add a link to that page at Downtown (disambiguation). I don't think a redirect is needed since I doubt anyone will search for it with this term and the parentheses and all. -- Kinu t/ c 16:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Kinu unless someone thinks this has potential for expansion beyond a dicdef. — Caesura (t) 19:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "Downtown" is an absolutely viable term, but the article could never possibly be more than a dicdef. -- Kicking222 22:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Is it possible to use a soft redirect to Wiktionary? Yank sox 23:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 21:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Auto-erotic performer

This article is both short and completely unreferenced, and the second part of the article reads like someone's wish-fulfilment sexual fantasy. I've done a quick search for supporting cites, and come up blank. Unless someone can come up with evidence to support either or both parts of this article, I suggest that the unverifiable material be deleted; and if there's nothing left, which seems probable, that the whole article be deleted. -- The Anome 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete; fails WP:V. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I suspect this is real, but without references...-- Chaser T 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

*Weak Keep with cleanup: I'm well out of my element in this discussion, but CFNM seems to be a documented article -- although the quality of that verification might need checked in turn. Because of the nature of the industry and the BDSM community (with which these topics have some, but not complete, overlap), it is going to be difficult to find wholly mainstream documentation. Regardless, if the other article's quality is able to stand, this one needs extensive cleanup; if it cannot grow beyond what it links to, Merge it instead. Serpent's Choice 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (retagged after signin to avoid appearance of sockism) reply

  • Reconsidered after my own efforts to research and improve this article. All Google hits are WP and mirrors. Nothing I can find referred to Stryker or The Gerogerigegege uses any term remotely like this one. There is a real CFNM sex underculture community (CMNF, also), but none of the references that I could find in that culture make use of this wording. In short, the phenomenon is real, but the term is not. This topic is adequately covered by CFNM, CMNF, Exhibitionism, and their related links. Delete per WP:NEO as a protologism. Serpent's Choice 12:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 'just closed. The article has been renamed Role of music in World War II, and bears little or no resemblance to what was originally AFD's. That was probably a good idea. Proto:: type 10:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of songs about World War II

Listcruft with no discernible encyclopedic value. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

        • What is "Listcruft?" No article in Wikipedia, no definition in the associated dictionary. Might as well say "fnorkthart" as the reason for deletion. Edison 03:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — Music performed during major wars has some cultural and sentimental value, particularly to those who lived through the period. I think this particular list is interesting and encyclopedic. — RJH ( talk) 16:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Question - What particularly do you find interesting and encyclopedic about it? -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Question -Do you really need such a Vanity page on your profile? If Wikipedia has room for you blogs, hobbies, interests and some of your photos it has room for a list of the music men and women listened to in the largest war in human history, or maybe not. -- Rhooker1236 16:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I fail to see what my user page has to do with this. And in any case, it's not about whether or not Wikipedia has room for a list like this, but rather whether or not it belongs in the first place. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 20:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Question -What particularly do you find about this place that makes it the wrong space to question the relative uses and abuses of Wikipedia? What makes this place the wrong place, and what makes your Vanity page Encyclopedic. If Wikipedia is going to delete this wonderful article because you demand a definition of encyclopedic well I have never seen an encyclopedia with administrators give each other metals, have links to their blogs, or post pictures of some houses they like. What makes you fit to judge the encyclopedic nature of a article when you abuse these values yourself. The article is excellent and should stay. To delete it would be an insult to the people who lived through that time. Especially since my wife just point out the idiotic Pamela Anderson article. This thing is becoming a joke. Also do you put your Wikipedia medals on when you go shopping?-- Rhooker1236 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I suppose it's partly because I grew up with people who had strong memories of the war, and the music of that time. Just as I have powerful memories associated with the music during the Vietnam War. So it's interesting to read about the music of the period and reflect on that time in history. Mayhap it's just a silly sentimentality. :-) — RJH ( talk) 18:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Preserving the cultural experience of the most dramatic event of modern history is not sentimentality, it is humanity. Your sane, the one's who want to delete this have simply gone nuts with the role playing game Wikipedia has become. Anyone who knows anything about WWII understands the critical role music played and would appreciate this article. In fact this is the only article in Wikipedia that my father in law, a vet from the South Pacific, found interesting. But I guess we need to make room for more shots of Pamela Anderson, fan comments on Star Trek:Enterprise, more comments on Klingon Language, to date one small child might speak natively in 10 years, and the Star Wars movies. I guess Andrew Orlowski was right after all.-- Rhooker1236 10:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Another Question "Another Brick in the Wall"? How were these determined? Fan-1967 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Another Question You seem able to write a lot of reason to delete, why not edit that one out of the article, even though there are songs about WWII in the Wall and Final Cut, but I have added better ones.-- Rhooker1236 14:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep I would imagine that over the years such a page could contain a full list of the popular music of WWII, and would be an invaluage living reference for historians and artists looking at that period. It is Wikipedic because it strives to expand the overall knowledge construction, because Wikipedia is one of the few places where such knowledge can be held, and that over time it will grow to become a hub connectiong to information, say details and lyrics of the songs, references to the songs role in history (i.e. Favority with Americans in South Pacific). Excellent article and the very fact its up for deletion, and that someone has been asked to define encyclopedic to try and save it is rather sad. -- Rhooker1236 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete, as it would probably be better off as a category, and as with all "List of [x] about [x] articles" the difficultiy in drawing boundries severly undermines it's usefullness. A list of significant songs about WWII, or songs from WWII might be usefull but would have similar problems. Artw 16:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Songs about WWII are almost a genre unto themselves. I see no problem with it, however I agree with Fan-1967 that some of the entries are questionable and should be vetted. 23skidoo 17:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Many of the songs are from that era, and took on meaning relevant to the war, but are not specifically about the war, and don't even mention it in any way. Some were written much earlier. Fan-1967 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - cat would be better, seeing as there is no additional information provided in the article which would substantiate a list -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) moving comment down below, now that article has been revised. — MrDolomite | Talk 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is what categories are for. How much of the song has to refer to WWII to be on this list? There is no article on songs about World War II (nor is there a need for one), so this list is not necessary. It is not encyclopedic and is listcruft. No need to open the door to lists of songs about WWI, the Vietnam War, the cola wars, or whatever. Agent 86 20:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The lack of criteria has already led to confusion about what can and can't go on the list (are we talking about "songs about the war" or "songs which were popular during the war"? Both appear to be listed and one of the rationales to keep above is also conflating the two together. Further, I'm not entirely convinced that everything on the list qualifies under either criterion). BigHaz 23:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Clear Case of Category. -- GWO
  • Keep m:mergist analysis seems to apply here. The problem with using a category is that it requires a separate article for each song. That is more WP:CRUFT-y than a single-article list, almost by definition. The list can mention songs that are verifiable but don't rise to the level of needing their own articles. Using a category would result in a bunch of song articles being made all the time that are basically content-free. Phr ( talk) 09:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete I don't completely object to the topic of this list, but this particular list is not worth keeping around. What are the criteria? For example, how is "I'll Get By (As Long As I Have You)" about World War II? As the entries on the list belie the idea that there's a clear topic, this is rendered useless. GassyGuy 10:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Is it that admins are voting on this without knowing anything about WWII culture, or not caring, or they just love to delete?
There seems to be a clear failure on the part of many of the admins on this group to understand cultural studies and history, but sadly it does not stop the march to delete, which is now the admins favorite past time. Just an effort to make clear. WWII was a radio war, the first and only radio war. For most people the only connection they had to the mass media of that day was through radio, and radio generally plays a lot of music. Song were about the war itself, or about the strong emotional feelings that the war took place, or just pretty songs that people in the war felt. Some songs were big band songs without words, but were popular with the troops. But espeically for the American forces songs defined a time, a cause, a connection to home, a wall against fear, and a positive outlook which got the nation through. If you want to know whay the US won WWII and lost Vietnam and the Second Iraq War probably the place to look are the songs, WWII songs speak of motivation, hope, aspiration, unity; a sense of political purpose lacking in recent wars and significant. This type of page is one of the most significant types of entries that Wikipedia could have that a book can not, as more and more songs and composers, in theory, are added and not deleted (highly unlikely) this list of significant songs that define a period would grow. If there is a need to more clearly defined that types of music that goes in this list than that is NOT best done with a delete. In fact this list is probably a defining moment for Wikipedia. It is the kind of network information that a Wiki is best at capturing, in fact the only reason to have a wiki is to be able to produce these kinds of centre points. If Wikipedia can't keep a critical contribution to knowledge construction like this, while still having a massive Pamela Anderson article, a huge page on Jorn Barger who runs a blogs and is an anti-semite, and masses on the Klingon language, than it is clearly and "objectively" dead as a form of human knowledge collection. This article holds the entire soul of Wikipedia. Wikipedia could have been the only place to collect this historically critical information, and it looks to be deleted. Its sad to because a number of us would clearly like to make the case for why this is critical on the page, but one the Wiki admins get the smell of a delete they won't stop. I'm sure this article will be deleted and it will be a truely pathetic day for Wikipedia. Of course Jimbo "Ayn Rand contains all truth" Jones many enemies will be delighted, as will Britanica and Google and Microsoft, knowing they have little to fear from an "encyclopedia" which can't even understand how important mustic was to WWII. -- Rhooker1236 10:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The above poster's arguments (once cleansed of their vitriol) notwithstanding, this article is ill-suited to document the role of music in WWII. Want an article about that? Make Role of music in WWII or something similar. That would be verifiable and encyclopediac. This is inviting a list that is open ended, unverifiable, an inherently tainted by POV arguments over what is "about enough" to be included. (As of 7/31, this has been done in all but name) Serpent's Choice 11:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • WRONG An article called "The Role of Music in WWII" would be open to NOPV since there exists no semiotic or cultural study theory at this time as to what the role of music is? What is the role of Rock Music, of Jazz, of Kabuki? Such an article would be by its nature rather opionated and more on the level of theory rather then encyclopedic. An article outline the most popular songs from the war and about the war CAN be verified, the role of music in the war can not. I don't mean to be vitriol but that does not make sense at all. A list of songs is easier to approve as being from a time or of a content than a discourse on the function of that music. Its sometimes like you admins aren't think in your hungry to delete articles. -- Rhooker1236 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - But the article, as you have recently edited it, has in fact become an original research topic on the role of music in WWII. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 14:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm moved by Rhooker1236's remarks (I already voted keep though). I think Serpent's Choice suggestion of an article about the role of music in WW2 is also a good idea, but I'm still fine with the list for reasons stated earlier. Issues of verifiability can be handled the usual way--anyone wanting to challenge an entry can ask for a cite (but don't do that maliciously, WP:AGF and challenge in cases where there's actual doubt). Replacing the list with a category does absolutely nothing to get rid of such doubts--instead of "why is this song on the list" it becomes "why is this song in the category". Phr ( talk) 11:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • My problem regarding this topic really is in its titling. Rhooker1236 wants this entry to bring together "songs that define a period". And I will not argue; WWII is perhaps unique among major wars in that music, at home and abroad, played an important role in morale and even propoganda. The use of music in the period is verifiable. It is notable. It is encyclopediac. But that's not what this list is titled as, and so that's not what it would contain. Rhooker1236 writes how "[s]ong[s] were about the war itself, or about the strong emotional feelings that the war took place, or just pretty songs that people in the war felt." But a pretty song that was a morale motivator for soldiers or their families homeside is not, strictly speaking, a "song about World War II". Such songs should be pulled from this list. Any song written before WWII could not be about the war, and should be pulled from this list. And what about songs written 10, 20, 30 years after the war? How can we decide whether those songs are "about" the war? For many bands and many songs, meaning is left to the audience. For us as editors to determine which songs are meant to invoke the memory of WWII to an extent worthy of making this list is fundamentally incompatible with WP:NPOV (Another Brick in the Wall??). For what its worth, Rhooker, I'm on your side. What you are talking about is something that Wikipedia needs (and that, so far as I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't currently have). But this list is not going to produce the end you're looking for. Let this one go, and make a more appropriate home for the knowledge. It deserves better. Serpent's Choice 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Firstly it is not up to you to decide what should be in the songs, let some people who lived through the period ad.
The article may have a poor name, but it redirects from "songs from WWII" so it is Songs about and Songs from WWII.
I have just spent 3 hours of my employers time to fill it out to a proper stub, but I have not touched the surface. My research indicates that the differences between the music of different regims, and the way WWII has been expressed after the is fascinating.
I hope to spent a few more weeks researching and expanding this article and giving it better links, please don't delete it, I am desperate here. I feel that Wikipedia's very soul is on the line here. This is the kind of article only something like Wikipedia can make, it does not hurt ANYONE that it is here and I KNOW that in time it can be a great article. If you delete it I really have to wonder about Jimbo's entire play thing.
And though my handle is rhooker123, to prevent spamming, my name is Robert Hooker, I live in London and am 39 years old and a buff about popular culture and World War II. I take ownership for the value of the knowledge constructed here and ask that a summary deletion not be carried out and that those of us who love the idea of this article be given a chance to make something great out of it.-- Rhooker1236 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Article is now radically different (expanded) compared to the first few days of this AfD. Participants who proposed deletion early in the discussion should check the new version. Partipants who proposed deletion early based on the old version and then didn't participate further should be downweighted for consensus purposes since they weren't referring to the same article. However, as someone said above, the new version should maybe have a different title. I don't see it as OR beyond other culture-related articles; it could use better sourcing, but it's still a work in progress. I think it's a promising article now. Phr ( talk) 14:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • References and sources I have taken references for the work, but I have a full time job and I am in the process of changing jobs right now, so I can only do work in patches. If I am going to fill this out it will take a couple of weeks, if it is just going to be deleted I would like to know now so I don't waste any more time on it. The vote seems to be against it, but how decisions are made is never clear. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhooker1236 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Delete after reviewing the updated content of the article (thanks for the note Phr), this is still a good use of a category. The non-list content of this article should be moved to a new article Role of music in WWII per Serpent's Choice above. — MrDolomite | Talk 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article is no longer a list at all, and at this point the article should simply be moved to a new title, since it's an entirely different article now. Issues of whether the article should then contain a list of songs are editorial questions belonging on the article's discussion page, not an afd (unless someone opens a separate afd for the new article). Unless someone objects (or does it first) I'm going to rename it to "Role of music in World War II". Also, kudos to Rhooker1236 for his work on this promising new article. Phr ( talk) 20:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a great article for those of us whose parents fought in the war, or whose parents lost someone in the war. It can be improved. There were lots of articles about the music of the war. Broadcasts and records were so crucial to the war effort that vinyl Vdiscs of songs were created and shipped to the troops even while the musicians union was on strike and commercial recordings were not being made. Lots of emotion invested in some couple's special song. Edison 01:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (but retitle). I have rescinded my previous deletion endorsement in light of the current state of the article. It will need to be renamed; it no longer remotely meets the description of a list as Wikipedia knows them. Although edits to entries in AfD are permissible (and have likely saved this content), I am reticent to be bold enough to pagemove this during AfD, given its evolution during the process. Also the page will require substantially better sourcing in the near-term regardless of destination titling, but because the content can be verified, that is a matter for the page's talk and no longer for AfD. Serpent's Choice 02:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Article is renamed Per earlier comment, since no one objected I've moved the article to Role of music in World War II. I left the AfD template in it but I think this AfD should be closed and the template removed. The article that was AfD'd and the present article have no resemblance to each other. Anyone still favoring deletion should open a new AfD. Discussion about the article content should go on the article talk page, not here. It's massively stressful to an article writer to have to make edits while an AfD is winding down. Phr ( talk) 04:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Biosingularity

Neologism. Google brings back lots of hits, but this mainly seems to be because it is the name of a blog. Of the non-blog hits many seem to have divergant meanings for the term. Artw 15:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep a stub on a significant issue that will be of growing interest to the Wiki community. Strange lame reason given for delete, are some of you even trying anymore?-- Rhooker1236 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The reason is far from lame. It is, in essence, that this is original research, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. That is one of the primary reasons for deleting articles, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If this is a "significant issue", then you should be able to cite sources on the subject of biosingularities. Please cite sources. Uncle G 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Transwik to Wiktionary. There doesn't appear to be much more to say about it here without going into "crystal ball" territory. Kafziel 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • This word is not used in running text anywhere, as far as I can see, and fails to satisfy Wiktionary's attestation criteria with a resounding thud. Uncle G 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Fair enough. Changed my vote. Kafziel 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The blog's author indicates that he/she coined the term. This is a neologism whose article facilitates linkspamming the blog. Unless the word can be shown to be in more widespread use, it should be deleted per WP:NEO.-- Chaser T 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The article cites no sources, and I can find no sources describing the purported concept of a "biosingularity". This is original research. Delete. Uncle G 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NEO - whoa WilyD 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as neologism (and multiply defined, with different meanings, at that.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Wannabegeek

Deprod by author. Less than 1000 google hits, many of which are irrelevant (it's a website and also someone's username on various sites). Hard to see how it could be longer than a dicdef. -- ais523 16:10, 21 July 2006 ( U T C)

  • Delete as original research. Molerat 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as dicdef. WilyD 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn neologism and as per above - Harmil 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per above -- Alias Flood 00:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Jaranda wat's sup 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Maris Stella High School

This page has it source from text taken from the school website

I have recieved a complaint at OTRS about this from a teacher from that school about this article. Ticket#: 2006072010009215 Deletion is requested becuase of copyright reasons. -- Walter 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep but removal of copyrighted text. Molerat 16:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- Kimchi.sg 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep after reducing to a stub. Golfcam 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep after reducing to a stub per [14]. Themindset 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Replace content with a {{ copyvio}} template, as per the usual procedure. :-) — RJH ( talk) 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Looks like it has been cleaned up nicely. I don't have any issue with certain institutions, such as Secondary Schools, getting a default status of notable, given that they meet some basic criteria. (Geographic locations appear to receive similar treatment.) Since we don't have such an agreed criteria, I'll just keep using my own for now. In this case my preference is keep. Thank you. :-) — RJH ( talk) 18:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep clearly established precedent and consensus over the past 2 years not to delete high school articles on wikipedia.-- Nicodemus75 02:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - -- Klemen Kocjancic 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as I think it was just the history that was a copyvio, which has been removed. If there's still a copyvio, then please put the {{ copyvio}} tag in place.. -- Rob 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable. Just another school. -- GWO
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Just another obviously notable school. Silensor 07:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete, which pretty much means that my argument is pointless. WP:SCHOOL is not a policy, and the words "high school" don't make a school notable. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep and please help reduce systemic bias this singapore high school is important Yuckfoo 16:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as above to help reduce the systemic bias against high schools in general on Wikipedia. Capit 17:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Secondary schools are notable, WP:SCHOOL not becoming policy is irrelevant to that point. Bahn Mi 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 23:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Changingworlds

Delete advertising for (one or more) non-notable comapnies; fails WP:CORP. No sources so unverifiable. Has serious point of view issues as written. Prod removed without explanation Gwernol 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138 Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Fairnie

Fails WP:BIO with either 799 or 78 google results. Fails WP:V with 2/3 of references based from lycos free pages. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong keep This seems like a classic misapplication of the google test, which is not very useful for people who did most of their work before pre-internet. Even if he fails BIO (I haven't really looked into it), the article asserts enough notability which is verifiable from reliable sources like this one that I think he has enough notability to keep. This page needs work, but it shouldn't be deleted. I'm willing to do some rewriting if the AfD closes keep.-- Chaser T 16:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep I support your arguments (and not only because I originally authored the piece!...). Steve Fairnie only played a bit-part in the history of music (and art), but his contribution had a huge effect on those whose path he crossed. U2 are the most notable example, but there are literally hundreds of others. His presence on the web has been slow to gain ground precisely because much of what he achieved was in the dark ages before Google, Wikipedia et al., but his legacy lives on, and I believe a Wikipedia entry would be appropriate. Thank you for your support, and I would gladly welcome rewriting in order to adhere more stringently to the Wikipedia thang!-- User:Tjpike
  • Rewrite and add cites Article is excessively devotional and not verifiable per WP:V. It needs to be rewritten with neutral phrasing and verifiable external cites. The article should also be shorter in my opinion, given Fairnie's obscurity. Also, try to follow Wikipedia style ( WP:MOS) about fonts, picture placement, etc, so the article visually looks like other Wikipedia articles (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gallery); the current layout may look good outside the encyclopedia context, but the way it stands out in Wikipedia is probably what attracted the deletion nomination.

    I just left you a welcome message with a bunch of links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines; please take a look at them. But I think your remark that Fairnie "only played a bit-part in the history of music (and art)" explains why this article is probably not encyclopedic. If you can document Fairnie's influence on U2, your best bet would be to mention that in the U2 article. You may have to go to the library to research suitable cites in printed sources--internet searches don't work so well for artists from this long ago. Anyway, don't get discouraged, do keep contributing, just try to get the hang of what kinds of articles fit into Wikipedia. Phr ( talk) 10:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Vote changed to conditional keep. The rewrite is more encyclopedic but documentation is still skimpy. I did a quick search of several news and periodical databases (through public library) and couldn't find anything, which is a bit worrisome. However, nothing obviously controversial is being claimed. Subject matter is suitable for encyclopedia if the claims check out. Phr ( talk) 02:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Keep based on most recent additional sourcing. Phr ( talk) 09:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for those words of advice, which have made me more conscious of what is required and what is the "norm" on Wikipedia. I'll do my best to make the necessary amendments! -- User:Tjpike

  • Is this getting any better?... I've taken your feedback on board on radically revised the page (which, incidentally, should be labelled 'Steve Fairnie', not 'Fairnie'... all part of the learning process). Let me know whether I'm any closer to the Wikipedia scheme of things in terms of presentation. As to whether he meets the notability grade, checking out the musician notability guidelines, I personally think he's in with a shout despite the aforementioned 'bit-part' aspect... perhaps 'essential cameo' would have been a better description! Yours, only too willing to learn! Tjpike 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, much better. Please add as much documentation as you can. The cites really do make the article stronger, which I think you would want regardless. You can rename the page with the "move page" tab (actually you may not have that tab yet, new editors don't get the tab for a few weeks to slow down vandalism, but you can ask someone else to move the page). Probably better to avoid confusion by not moving it til after the AfD closes. Phr ( talk) 02:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Further: I see now, some of the references given do document claims in the article. For example, the Willie Williams interview describes the U2 connection. But the references aren't connected closely enough to the article, so when the article says "Fairnie influenced U2" it makes me say "where's that documented?" since there's no immediate connection to the interview. The way to fix that is by adding footnotes, so next to the U2 mention, you'd immediately have a link pointing to a footnote that cites the interview. See Help:Footnotes for how to do this. Phr ( talk) 02:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • OK, I'll add footnotes - I understand the logic in that. Can it also be useful to add direct quotes? (e.g. from his obituary in The Independent (10/03/93) , or various Melody Maker / NME reviews) Also, should record label information be included, or the fact that 'Hype' was among the first releases on Virgin Games, or the Robert Lax publication references? I think so much pedantic information wouldn't be necessary for a major league artist, but perhaps it's necessary here in the interest of accuracy and credibility?... Please advise. Tjpike 06:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Yes of course you can use direct quotes, just keep them reasonably short, to not get in copyright trouble. As for the other stuff, it's pretty flexible, I'd say just find some comparable biographies and do what they do. Actually the more major artists have MORE detailed info, depending on how much work the article's editors were willing to do. For example, look at Phil Collins, which is a featured article (i.e. designated as one of the best articles on Wikipedia). See WP:FA#Music for a list of other music-related FA's. Again, spend some time exploring the links in the welcome message for various kinds of advice about how to research and write good articles. WP:TPA sums it up. Phr ( talk) 07:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for all the tips. I've been very pleasantly surprised at how active things are behind the scenes here and how helpful you've been! I've continued to edit the piece, and hope I'm getting if not "there", at least a little closer! I hope I haven't gone overboard on the references, and I'm not quite sure how to word them properly. I look forward to the next wave of feedback! All the best Tjpike 20:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Glad to help, and glad the article is shaping up. Further discussion should be on the article's talk page; an AfD is not the right place for this kind of conversation. Phr ( talk) 04:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: interesting subject with plenty of references. HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 08:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Bobet 12:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Wilson Lee Flores

The subject is a newspaper/magazine columnist and has a real estate business in the Philippines. His only notable achievement was receiving a Palanca Award in 1987, but very few Palanca Award recipients have entries here. There are 281 Google hits for his name, in English, but only 65 unique hits. - Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 09:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: if the Palanca Award is as prestigious and significant as the page makes it out to be, why shouldn't we have articles on the recipients? up+land 11:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep only to cleanup and WP:V such claims. If not, let me know and I'll change my vote. Zos 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Keep The awards mentioned are quite prestigious and beyond reproach in integrity. This unsigned comment was the second generated by 124.106.237.43 ( talk · contribs).
      • CommentThe writer has won three Palanca literary awards (not one as mentioned by the anonymous complainant) and he has also won 5 times in the Catholic Mass Media Awards in three years for his columns. The CMMA is the most prestigious mass media awards in the Philippines, testament to a writer's integrity and quality of writings. The Philippine Star is a major newspaper, and he writes a column here. It is strange that a person would complain about this entry, because this Wikipedia is only for reference purposes and the Wikipedia is not a "Who's Who" of celebrities, but a source of useful informations.
      • On the suggestion that other Palanca winners be cited in Wikipedia, why not? What is wrong with it?

The data about Wilson Lee Flores in this entry doesn't violate any copyright rules. If there are any copyright violations, please kindly specify.

It is strange that someone is spending time to erase this entry on Wilson Lee Flores for seemingly invalid reasons. I do not think a person should be mentioned in Wikipedia just because he or she has the most number of yahoo or google entries, this is not wholly rational. He is an interesting and a major newspaper columnist nd multi-awarded writer. I agree, the complaint seems quite out of place and unnecessary.

      • The data cited in the Wilson Lee Flores entry are all original, and does not violate any copyright informations anywhere. I further agree, if there are any alleged copyright violations, please present the specifics here.

In the rules of Wikipedia for inclusion of biographies, one of the criteria stated includes--- "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Wilson Lee Flores has authored five (5) books published by De La Salle University Press, which is part of one of the top universities in the Philippines. He had published thousands of newspaper columns, essays, articles in local and international publications which help shape public opinion.


In my casual research of Google, there are 714,000 hits on the name Wilson Lee Flores. But since I don't have time to go over the entire contents, I didn't have time to verify how many are "unique" hits. However, there was never any mention in the criteria for Wikipedia biographies that an entry should have the most number of google hits of whether a million or ten million. I also read that Wilson Lee Flores is President of Anvil Business Club, a major business organization in the Philippines whose induction of officers in July 2005 was hosted by Philippine President Gloria Macaopagal Arroyo in the Malacañang presidential palace at a 3-hours formal dinner. Among the guests included foreign diplomats such as the Singapore Ambassador, cabinet officials, legislators, heads of foreign chambers of commerce such as the British and Taiwanese Chambers of Commerce and others. This event was on primetime television news and reported in major newspapers such as Philippine Daily Inquirer and Philippine Star. He is not only a multi-awarded writer, but a leader of a major business organization. The above comments were all generated from the same IP address.

Commment . Try [ this] google search for < 300 hits. The quotation marks make all the difference -- Peripitus (Talk) 22:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Retain. It is very obvious to everyone that this writer more than merits citation in here due to his numerous awards and other notable activities, but I suggest that the whole piece can be edited for further improvement. This unsigned comment was the first generated by 124.106.237.43 ( talk · contribs).
  • Keep agree to Wine Guy on his two points---that the author clearly meets the requirements and that the write-up needs clean up. This unsigned comment was generated by Musicloverasia ( talk · contribs).
Comment - this is exactly why I listed the entry here for community-wide input on a keep/delete decision. I did not, however, anticipate this apparent sockpuppetry. Votes are coming into this AFD from anon IP editors whose only contributions are here and at the Flores entry. One anon editor entered his first comment down at the bottom, then went back up near the top to stick a second vote – four minutes later – in an attempt to vote twice. Musicloverasia has only one edit (at the time I wrote this), and it's the "keep" vote just above this comment. (New editors, all your edits are tracked and kept pursuant to the GFDL license.) There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Palanca Award - but I had never heard of it before reading this entry, and I still don't know much about it other than it's a Philippine award. Flores won his three all in the same year, 1987, and they were all for essays, not books. He won 1st and two other essays tied for 3rd place that year.
I listed this here because I just don't know if he meets the notability threshold or not. If the man is indeed notable enough to include in an encyclopedia, let's keep the entry, by all means. On the other hand, I have trouble keeping it if most of the votes here are from meatpuppets. I hope we get more unique votes. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 22:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I cannot find any of the puported books at the publisher's [ website]. All I can see is that he's journalist who's president of a business club. No books on either amazon or [ http://www.kabayancentral.com] to be seen Per the below link it seems that the books are 8-page pamphlets which is hardly inspiring. Without verifyability this is a vanity article making unsupportable claims of notability. IF you remove the unverified parts of the article it clearly fails WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 03:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ...This is blatantly a vanity page. Information seen here only seems to laud the said person. Google search shows 281 hits since the person is a columist of a newpaper wherein he is a contributor, these topics were simply written by him. Secondly those voting to retain or keep the said articles are from the same ip in which User|124.106.237.43 has several comments & votes to keep or retain. Others are anonymous and unsigned. I would surmise that the author of this topic ( or probably Wilson Lee Flores himself) is the one defending and giving positive comments on the topic since the comments seems to be very detailed. Whereas most unique votes has voted to have it deleted.I have read the said article and I feel it does not deserve to be retained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.69.18.27 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Violation of Wikipedia’s Autobiograpy policy of writing an article about oneself. Author of Flores topic use the guise of writing in the third person to present his biography. Neutral point of view has not been observed. As evidenced by grandstanding - seen by his self-inclusion in the List of Famous Chinese Filipinos or Chinese Mestizos history on March 21 2006 edit. Said topic has no impact or importance as an encyclopedic entry. Author may just use his user's page to enlighten Wikipedians on his accomplishments. Also violates WP:ENC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.140.213 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Keep The five books authored by Wilson Lee Flores are publicly on sale in Philippine bookstores, and those were published by De La Salle University Press. This fact can easily be verified by any person because De La Salle University Press is connected to one of the best universities in the Philippines. It is possible that the entry on Wilson Lee Flores was originally written by others, but the said subject had perhaps edited it himself in more details and probably over enthusiastically without fully knowing the rules of Wikipedia which correctly states that the point of view should be neutral. In objective assessment of this subject, he is an award-winning writer and author who merits mention in Wikipedia. A mention in Wikipedia is not to praise or to laud a person, that is why the point of view should be neutral and the entry should be edited in its point of view, but to delete it for wrong reasons is also wrong. That is just my honest and unbiased opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MusicLoverAsia ( talk • contribs) .

I do think that this is just a question of editing the point of view to make sure the point of view is neutral.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Music lover asia ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 20 July 2006.

  • Comment links provided by Musicloverasia shows the 5 books written by Flores has a total of 8 pages each, whether it includes the preface, table of contents or appendix, it's still a book, nontheless- or is it?-- Aquaman007 08:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    more of a pamphlet rather than a book at 8 pages - Peripitus (Talk) 09:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Delete A pamphlet it is.- UNESCO requires a publication (other than a periodical) to have 'at least 5 but not more than 48 pages exclusive of the cover pages' to count as a pamphlet; a longer item is a book. You would expect a multi-awarded writer and public speaker as claimed by the author to do better than write 8 page pamphlets. Notability highly in doubt.For a book, the pamphlet is not.-- 58.69.34.133 11:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Look, authors don't have to write books to be notable. This guy wan his Palanca Award for an essay. I think it counts. Mango juice talk 16:38, 21 July 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, Mango juice talk 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Is the Palanca award verifiable. What years? There's a wiki list by year but a cursory look didn't uncover him. Dlyons493 Talk 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It's here: 1987 Palanca Awards. -- Howard t he Du c k 02:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. So he did win three prizes, but in a single year and in the fairly minor category of Essays. Now if it had been a book I'd have no doubts, but an essay ??? Dlyons493 Talk
        • Im pretty much sure he didn't just do essays, I remember reading his short stories/poems (?) while in high school. -- Howard t he Du c k 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Note: He is also a columnist of the Philippine Star.
  • Delete Unable to verify claims on being a Director of the UMPIL, as a judge of various writing contest, as the editor of the 1986 book " The Turning Point", " Roots of the Philippine Business", on being a speaker in Soth Korea in 1988. 210.213.190.184 04:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • [15]] suggests the only editor was Brevern. But the book is apparently a collection so it's possible one of his essays is included - I can't verify that from here. Some of the articles claims are backed up by his old school [16] Dlyons493 Talk 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE WP:VAIN WP:VERIFY 58.69.18.238 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment this vote is from an editor who has just been vandalising the the AfD. Bandwith problems let to inadvertent blanking. Dlyons493 Talk 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep no reason for this nomination in my opinion. Daviegold 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable author, even if notability is minor. WP isn't a better place without this article. Aye-Aye 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is becoming utterly hilarious. We are not nominating this writer for a Nobel Prize for Literature. Isn't his having won five times in the most prestigious Philippine journalism awards---the Catholic Mass Media Awards---enough to merit this article? The way some naysayers are so vehemently nitpicking makes this seem like a deliberation for the Nobel Prize or Pulitzer Prize. First there was a claim the books are non-existent, then those are now being criticized...there was an earlier claim that he won one Palanca award, when there were three awards...but now this is questioned because they were all won in one year...this discussion is becoming too hilarious, don't you think? I suggest we be objective and less trivial, let this article be and move on to more important things.
  • Delete Pathetic excuse to let the article remain, as mentioned WP is informative, just put his name in the Palanca link (which is already the case) and thats it. Why does the article have to mention so many other events of this authors life which is hardly worth mentioning and quite ordinary to say the least. I would rather the author just reveal himself to the discussion group and not use anon ip and pseudonyms. I think this is an ego matter. So lets end this articles misery and as what the comment above says move on since if we leave this in other administrators who sees this article will nominate it for deletion again.
  • Comment Agree that editing be done to ensure a neutral editorial point of view, perhaps that's the main problem of the complainant. The writer's having won 5 times in the Catholic Mass Media Awards seems to be noteworthy, not just his Palanca Awards, since it is without doubt the most important journalism honor in the Philippines attesting to integrity and excellence. I suggest that this fact not be ignored. I had already checked the credibility of the Catholic Mass Media Awards, and the Philippine media had reported his wins in recent years, and those awards should not be belittled even by the complainant against this article being in Wikipedia. The writer or his friends might be wrong in over enthusiastic descriptions of the writer before---and I agree those should be properly edited---but it would be equally wrong to be biased and to personally attack the writer's credentials or his works. Let us also not be guilty of being biased or frivolous in our criticisms. Thanks for allowing me to share my opinions.
  • Delete. There is a no vanity policy here. It doesn't matter if you are a journalist/businessman or whatever. Don't write about yourself, or even someone close to you, period. Pls see the arguments of User:JChap2007 aside from the policies mentioned. Assuming that the intent is for vanity which seems to be the case, the vote is delete no matter how verified or NPOVd this article is. With all policies aside, a community encyclo can not be taken advantage of in this way and its wrong. But since I assume good faith, I edited it for improved keepability, but still deletable with the other policy violation arguments mentioned above. Hope the edits are enough to merit a keep it but I won't be surprised if this thing is gone. :) -- Noypi380 15:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, I can still change my vote, but an example must be made about vanity by deleting it. No worries, if notability is there, the article can be made again. :) -- Noypi380 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mo0[ talk] 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Summer Lynn

A non-notable porn star -- Porqin 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mo0[ talk] 04:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Shawn MacKenzie

I can't verify ANY of this information. Searching the University of Prince Edward Island, does NOT make any mention of the "first man enrolled in Veterinary Medicine" Also, searching for "Shining Waters", "Salty", and "Shawn MacKenzie" give no hits on Google. The article reads like a elaborate hoax. Wildthing61476 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:V. Even if claims were verified, I don't see enough to pass WP:BIO. -- Fan-1967 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per User:Fan-1967 -- Porqin 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm >< close to speedying it, since the statement about first man enrolled in VM is highly suspect since the page for that college [18] has a big banner saying "20 years...". Syrthiss 19:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Unless the Vet school opened 20 years ago for women only and he's the first man. Doesn't seem real likely, does it? Fan-1967 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If it helps this article WAS deleted for nn bio earlier, but did not include a lot of the same "facts". Wildthing61476 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Not really. If I speedied it it would be in anticipation of a delete, but I cannot apply A7 because the article *does* give some assertion as to why he is notable (tho lacking sources). Syrthiss 19:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete please it could be a hoax too Yuckfoo 17:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator, unverifiable with hoaxalicious flavor. RFerreira 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Proto:: type 10:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Klerck

"Not notable". No vote from me. Kotepho 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Previously nominated at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klerck

  • Keep. This AfD is because of a prior bogus speedy nomination from an apparent GNAA troll Werto ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). See for example Image:Freelimbaugh247.png (note the data in the form fields) and trolling at [19] and [20]. -- Phr ( talk) 18:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep definitely notable. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. Doesn't matter who nominated this article, it blatantly violates WP:BIO and WP:V. The sole claim to notability is "Some credit his page widening techniques as the primary reason Slashdot implemented the lameness filter, which checks pending comments for repetitive text or malicious formatting before allowing them to appear on a website". Even if you consider that noteworthy - which I don't, some blog changed some setting in response to some nerd making pages wide and annoying other nerds? Why didn't I see his obituary in The Times? - the claim is tagged with {{ fact}}, and it's obviously never going to get a citation from a reliable source. "Some credit"... "Some users found..." "May show..." - this is a complete joke. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The nominator removed stuff about the notorious Two Towers petition which got considerable press attention. I'll put it back. Phr ( talk) 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • (edit conflict (I saw the petition stuff)) Might as well cover the other supposed claims to notability: he got banned from somewhere, he founded a joke petition, and he committed suicide, all of which I could probably do myself within 3-12 hours, depending on how quickly I can procure a bottle of vodka and some sleeping pills. The petition is supposedly notable for its external coverage, but I read the Times article via Factiva. It's 8 lines long and doesn't mention Klerck at all. There is also an MSNBC article which is only mentioned in a blog article, with no actual proper citation to be found to give us any hint of how we can find the actual article (and if verification isn't repeatable, it's not verification at all), and it sounds bloggish anyway from the article actually linked. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment a minute with Proquest found several news stories from all over the world about the petition incident (they don't mention Klerck by name); I added a few more cites to the article. I don't think this is the most important article in the world but I'm a bit bothered by the notion that Wikipedia articles can get removed if MSNBC takes down a story that the Wikipedia article cites. WP:V expresses a preference for citing online media instead of print media and maybe that's not such a great idea. I like to think Wikipedia will be around long after organizations like MSNBC are gone. Phr ( talk) 07:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete-especially after reading the previous AfD. I see this article being a real POV fork, in either direction. For those who love them, they can slather unsourced Weasel Words and craft it as a Wiki-Memorial. For others, it can be a lightening rod for troll vandalism. But on the whole, I don't see how all the sums merits an article. 1.) He was a notable troll. Trolls are not inherently notable and in fact tend to have a short shelf life. Is anyone going to be looking up a particular internet troll 10 years from now? But he was "famous" in his own time and to that extent I would think he warrants his mention on the Internet troll page. 2.) The Petition. I could possibly see an argument for this having an article but in truth, it's best served with the mention it already has for on the Two Towers page. 3.) He posted a suicide note on the web. Sadly, this all too common and the nature of his suicide doesn't have the unique element that Brandon Vedas had in regards to internet culpability. Adding it all together, I just don't see a reason to keep it. Agne 02:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a list of everything ever mentioned in the press. Too-brief-fad. -- GWO
  • Keep. Notable in so many different ways. Internet troll culture, suicide and exploiting flaws. Viscid 08:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Delete I have merged the encyclopedic aspects of the Two Towers petition to The Two Towers (film)#9/11 "controversy". As some have mentioned, there might be some bits worthy of merging to Internet troll or the Slashdot pages. Goodbye, Klerck. KWH 08:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I actually like the article for sort-of-literary reasons that are hard to explain. It somehow got on my watchlist a fairly long time ago and it does get vandalized regularly, so I end up looking at it again every so often when fixing it. Its view into Klerck's personality adds some character to the encyclopedia, or something like that. I'm reminded also of User:Grace Note's and User:Vizjim's comments in Sam Sloan's AfD about AfD's on semi-notable, unusual personalities and I'm somewhat persuaded by their arguments when self-promotion isn't involved (and I'm a long way from being an inclusionist). Sam Blanning's remark that it doesn't matter who nominated the article is of course true, but the speedy nominator was blocked as a GNAA troll a few hours after making the nom. It will be ironic if a troll takes out the article after the regular editors have left it in peace for so long. Phr ( talk) 10:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The circumstances in which this has been nominated concern me. I think the nom could be an attempt at disruption. -- Tim1988 talk 10:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Trollish nomination or not, this subject really doesn't merit an article, and as usable content has been merged to appropriate locations, this is rendered unnecessary. It is sort of an interesting content, but it doesn't belong on this site. GassyGuy 11:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Speedy someone whose biggest claim to fame was posting an online petition to get a movie title changed??? Even if successful (and it wasn't), it wouldn't be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Actually there is some circumstantial evidence that the petition was partly successful. As reported in the LA Times, the LOTR filmmakers did a big benefit premiere of Fellowship of the Ring in NYC for a 9/11 charity, but then, subsequent to Klerck's petition making the internet rounds, they got cold feet at doing a similar premiere for the second film. However, it's not directly established (at least right now) that the second premiere was cancelled because of the petition. Phr ( talk) 09:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The petition got press coverage from around the world, and someone thought it was notable enough to document it in the "Two Towers" film article in its own section (I don't think I would have gone that far). It's attributed there to Klerck (originally without a wikilink) but that immediately raises the question "what kind of person would have done this?". And where else is anyone going to find the info? My original "keep" sentiments were lukewarm but I feel somewhat firmer about it now. Phr ( talk) 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Note that addition to the Two Towers article was just done today, and seems to be a response to this AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, sorry if it wasn't clear that I was responding to that. Phr ( talk) 02:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a memorial to dead losers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Q0 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete -- KJFhjf 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep' It can improve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.148.223 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep The article needs some work but is on someone with a relatively large importance on parts of the internet which had some effects into the real world as well Crummy 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Account created 2 days before the AfD was entered and has just a few edits, not sure that should be weighted. Phr ( talk) 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep This page is essential in documenting internet troll and GNAA culture. This infomation is of the kind that can be very easily lost. He was an important net personality at one point.-- CalPaterson 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Articles like this are not only non-notable but also glorify and support trolling. -- Vergardio 00:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Brand new account, jumps immediately into this afd and related ones, possible sock. Phr ( talk) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete -- TheEmoEater 01:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ka-Me-Ha-Me-Ha! Keep! This man is an icon of Trolling in the same way Che Guevara is an icon of socialist revolutionary movements worldwide!-- Gainax 01:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • New account, not sure what to make of contribs, doesn't appear sock-like. Phr ( talk) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Phr, I know this person in real life. Gainax is not a sock, and has just recieved a barnstar.-- CalPaterson 18:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Coment I don't see any Klerck t-shirts. -- Yunipo 05:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per norm -- Yunipo 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Brand new account, first contribution is to this AFD and next is to insert a bunch of {{fact}} tags into the Klerck article for things that were in fact documented in the references cited in the article.
  • Delete per Sam Blanning. -- Scientizzle 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - I completely agree with Agne. I was honestly strongly considering a Weak Keep, I guess partly in sympathy... but the points in keeping an article to Wiki standards outweigh that notion. The Two Towers Petition thing could be notable as an internet phenomenon, and yeah, could technically have its own article, actually. I see it's been merged into the film's article though, which I think is enough. His death, while tragic, is something that happens regularly in this world. Still, I think brief information about him in the internet troll article should stay intact as well though, as a sort of "famous example." Maybe a little more info could be added to the Two Towers article of his antic (maybe his death could fit in to the Trivia section, possibly, heh). -- Shadowolf 08:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as hard as it is for me to say - don't care much about the circumstances of nomination, this clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:V. All of this stuff sounds a bit fishy to me, especially the supposed trolling stuff (as in "disruptive behaviour even the most thick-headed hooligans can come up in two seconds flat"). And if all of this stuff were true, that still would barely climb above the notability threshold. The petition may or may not be notable in itself but that doesn't mean petitioner is. ("I believe every dog and wolf puppy should have an article." There. You can quote me on that. Now please make an article about me. Don't feel like? Well, neither do I.) And while suicides are always tragic, this is neither first of its kind nor notable in its own right, I'm terribly sorry. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 10:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I notice that the brand new user "Yunica" (who I suspect is yet another sock of the original nominator) recently went and spewed bogus {{fact}} tags all over the article, to make the verifiability issues look worse than they are (the tags were bogus because they were attached to items which were in fact already documented in the references section). I added footnotes to where most of the tags were, though to be fair there are still a few things needing to be checked out. Inserting those tags appears to have been a bad faith edit to manipulate the afd. If that was the version you saw, it would be nice if you could take another look. Most of the article is in fact pretty well sourced. Phr ( talk) 11:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Even with that stuff sourced, this person's notability is still rather marginal. Like I said, the petition is probably more infamous than the person. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 12:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Well sure, the newsmedia didn't report on the person because (like Jack the Ripper) he didn't attach his name to his activity; but unlike Jack the Ripper, there wasn't a trail of bodies and consequent huge manhunt, so there wasn't that much attempt to find the person behind the events. What documentation remains is of some historical interest, but it's fading away steadily and is mostly concentrated in places like this, and is simply going to be lost if the article is deleted. I see preserving that type of hard-to-collect documentation as part of why Wikipedia is here. Wikipedia shouldn't be entirely about video game characters. Phr ( talk) 12:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (Also see: No true Scotsman) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC). reply
  • Keep and cleanup, he's notable enough, with some of his activities cited and his death also fairly notable in the online community, though the "some... while others..." chaff really has to go. I think it's safe to remove any text flagged with the {{fact}} tags if they haven't been fixed by the conclusion of this AfD (assuming this article is kept). -- Deathphoenix ʕ 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Some more cites are now added. Phr ( talk) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment-I am a bit concerned at the path this AfD is starting to take, in particular with the isolating of users who favor delete for an examination of their "good faith". An AfD is never meant to be a vote and frankly, the three word "keep/delete per nom" reply is rather useless unless there is persuasive reasoning behind the view. Hence, there is not a need to "swift boat" the other side to try and cancel out their "vote". I do believe it is in the best interest of all to simply WP:AGF and state your reason for keep or deletion and leave it at that. There is no need to comment on each and every user's possible vote motivation. Agne 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:BIO. --Slgr @ndson ( page - messages - contribs) 16:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article also hardly expands. It seems a lot of the sites he used to go to deleted a lot of the things he's said. The suicide thing is also questionable to the lack of information. Markendust
    • Comment some people (myself included) believe his whole "suicide" was just an elaborate troll. -- Yunipo 02:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Agne, it is part of AFD policy that new accounts are supposed to weigh less in determining consensus; I made notes of all the ones I noticed, not just the "delete" supporters, to assist the closing admin and to alert those who might find themselves "piling on". I also believe there is sockpuppeting going on given the number of WP:SPA's participating here, a couple of whom have already been blocked. I even see possible issues of censorship on the part of the original apparently-GNAA-connected bad-faith speedy nominator and his/her possible associates or socks trying to suppress this article and now the similar one Brandon Vedas ( AfD by another brand new user). (That issue emphatically does not apply to the legitimate supporters of deletion on good-faith editorial grounds). Per Agne's request, I will stop adding such notes, but the closing admin and others should check the contributions of every participant. And, I only made such notes for the SPA's, not regular editors who favored deletion (though I responded to some of their arguments).

    Yunipo, on my first contact with the article, I also suspected the death (including the published obituary linked from the article) might be a hoax and I thought of AfD'ing it myself, but I checked it out off-web and confirmed it to my satisfaction, and that's how I started watching the article.

    Re the WP:BIO complaints: I agree that Klerck's personal notability per se is marginal per the guidelines, but I think the biographical info is important as background and context for his widely-reported activities (the article currently cites newspapers of 3 or 4 different countries). As a web user who has to deal with trolls, I'm interested in their biographies, just as people concerned with terrorism might study the biography of Mohammed Atta, to know what they're dealing with. Just about anyone (as Sam Blanning remarks) could do what Klerck did; and any airline pilot could do what Atta did--so why didn't they? One has to look for answers to "why do these guys do what they do?" and it's not enough to say "Atta attacked the WTC because he was a terrorist, end of story". So the biographies and their documentation are relevant in the search for understanding. That's why I find merging the petition stuff to the Two Towers movie and trashing the rest to be unsatisfactory. Phr ( talk) 10:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I am not closing this AfD, but I do not think this is notable, and agree it should be deleted -- Avi 04:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG KEEP. I don't care if he is notable or not but the article is helpful for people who study cybersociology. I hadn't expected to read such a thing when I was looking for the word " troll". I ask you: WHAT WOULD YOU GAIN IN DELETING THIS WELL-WRITTEN PAGE? There are trillions or articles topped with unadulterated BS. Why do you not delete them? And some arrogant people are not paying attention to people who didn't contribute much with their usernames. EVERYONE is equal here.

WHY HAS SOME LOSER APPLIED FOR DELETION FOR THE SECOND TIME WHEN THIS ARTICLE HAS ALREADY BEEN VOTED FOR A "KEEP" (No, I didn't mean concubine) IN THE FIRST AfD DEBATE? BADMINton 09:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mo0[ talk] 04:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mano Mudd

Looks hoaxish, zero Google hits ( WP:V). I shouldn't even have bothered with the PROD, of course... Sandstein 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. In this discussion I feel that the keep recommendations hold very little water in relation to our established policies; indeed many of these votes appear to vouch for the limited playerbase of this game. This discussion has convinced me that ActsMUD fails to meet our criteria regarding notability - as may some of our other articles on small MUDs. Rje 23:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

ActsMUD

  • This article is non-notable, and falls under WP:VAIN. It is a homemade game with unknown cultural impact. It also violates Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as it contains self-published fiction. It is not encyclopedic in my opinion. There are several other MUD articles similar to this one, but I'd like to have a discussion on this one before rolling them all up for AfD. JRavn 17:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
self-published fiction are not all MUDs self-published? It is not common sense to apply that to MUDs as they are all self-published almost by definition. Well ActsMUD came out of a university so the homemade bit is not actually accurate, but are not most of MUDs 'homemade'? -- Zeth, 23 July 2006
The author of ActsMUD tries to establish that his mud falls under Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) which I'm disagreeing with here. Whether or not all MUDs are self-published is another issue (I would say that commercial MUDs are not). -- JRavn 21:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete Has just 14 unique Google hits (and that's even being generous and counting the Wikipedia ones). According to TopMUDSites, is has an average of 1-5 players online.

Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

14 unique Google hits - is a little misleading since the MUD only just settled on a single name (used to be a mix of Acts World, Acts MUD, ActsMUD and others). To see how meaningless the so called 'google test' is compare 5,180,00 hits for "Acts MUD". -- Zeth, 23 July 2006
The Google test can be a very valid notability test, as long as the search is done reasonably. The search query "Acts MUD" results in 29. Your example, 'acts mud', results in the 5+ million, but is not a good query as it is entirely too vague. 'acts mud zeth' (zeth for your telnet/www address) results in ~100, many of which have nothing at all to do with your MUD.
Your devotion to your MUD (I don't know if you're a player or an imm, but your nick combined with the places address suggests you are something) is most understandable, but the game is simply not notable, and Wikipedia is not a MU*-list.
-- Phorteetoo 03:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep
It is a very new and quite small MUD. It is however not quite as small as some of the other sites in the MU* games, some of which appear to be dead. The Google test is not really the best for MUDs as once you log in, there is very little need for the web any more, as all the relevant info will be there.
There are several other MUD articles similar to this one - similar in the sense that they define small MUDs? There are no other MUDs featured here that deal with the ancient historical world. Therefore the article is a bit more notable than some of the others since there are a lot of articles dealing with similar medieval fantasy themes.
A wider question is whether articles about individual MUDs should be included at all. However if you have bloodlust and want to delete the page then you would have to go through the rest of the articles too. -- Zeth, 23 July 2006
The other MUD articles are similar because they are also non-notable and not encyclopedic. Having unique content in your MUD does not make it notable. If you would like to make people aware of historical themes in MUDs, a section on themes could be added to the MUD article. -- JRavn 21:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are different types of MUD, some commercial with huge advertising budgets, some homegrown, many medieval, a few sci-fi, a few historical, some big, some small. It seems sensible that the Wikipedia should have at least one real example of all of them. I think that Wikipedia should have at least one example of a historical MUD (note they are all quite small), so is it not better that you save deleting this article until someone adds a better example? -- Jimbo06 13:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
What example have you got that is better? -- Zeth, 23 July 2006
Well LegendMUD is kind of historically focused. I think there are two issues here. 1 is that the Wikipedia Mods do not like lots of articles about individual medium to small MUDs. 2. There is not a very wide range of coverage in the MUD treatment on Wikipedia. If we separate out these issues then a sensible way forward is to ditch the individual articles and focus attention on having an article about MUD themes and genres. -- Jimbo06 13:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I would just like to point out that Jimbo06 is the creator of ActsMUD and the initial author of the wikipedia article. Also, this comment has been discussed in Talk:ActsMUD. -- JRavn 21:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
And User:JRavn currently developing an active MUD based off of CircleMUD. -- Jimbo06 09:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Come on boys (or girls) no need to make it personal, We all agree that the current situation needs a bit of thought. We all agree that Wikipedia needs to cover MUDs in some way, and that having a wikipedia page for every single MUD is possibly not maintainable. The question now is do we merge parts of this content into another article or lose the whole thing? We could merge all 5-6 articles dealing with CircleMUD MUDs into one article. Then the page could be maintained with half-a-dozen varied examples of how the CircleMUD has been and is being used. These examples could be replaced over time as required. -- Zeth 10:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Jimbo06, the WP:AfD clearly states to mention if you have a vested interest in the article in question. I merely pointed this out in the interest of fairness, there is no personal attack here. -- JRavn 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • One option would be to Merge into a new article CircleMUD games, I am also arguing that the stub Necromium be merged in, and the rest if and when everyone is happy with the new article. -- Zeth 10:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
So what I am proposing is that we make a new page about CircleMUD games, and then over there to carry on the debate about what half-a-dozen MUDs we choose to show the wide range of CircleMUD uses. There will then be no need for individual pages such as this.-- Zeth 10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The original issue still remains. Wikipedia is not a collection of links or examples, neither is it a place for people to host their private MUD webpage. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and Wikipedia:Five_pillars are good references. If we want to create a page devoted to examples of CircleMUDs, there must be something notable to say about them that specifically relates to those examples. I don't see what there could be that wouldn't better be placed on the MUDs or CircleMUD page. -- JRavn 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think this is worth an article, it quite clearly explains an actual game which may not have many players but does exist. There are much more obscure things on Wikipeda. The article doesn't make out to advertise and gives precise information which is straight to the point. ( Neostinker 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)) reply


Wikipedia isn't an indiscrimate collection of information. An article needs more than existence and good writing to make it encyclopedic. -- JRavn 02:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Before you have a conspiracy theory JRavn, I have never heard of Neostinker before. Has "notability" become an idol or a golden calf? Wikipedia is not a printed book. Is Wikipedia really that short of Server space? -- Zeth 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure that 'indiscriminate collection of information' is fair here. The MUDconnector is not a GDFL or other free content licenced site, so its existence does not necessarily demand that a good collection of MUDs are not covered here. Encyclopedia Britannica website exists so should we delete all the articles that are covered there? Plenty of technical lists exist on the Internet, should we then delete all the descriptions of small software packages on this wiki? By no means!! The Wikipedia can provide much that the MUDconnector can not. Firstly anyone can edit, secondly there is the NPOV and so on. -- Zeth 22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I know what you're saying Zeth, but again, Wikipedia isn't an indiscrimate collection of information. Just because anyone can add to it doesn't mean we should store any random knowledge we would like. You are more than free to create your own MUD listing wiki that anyone can edit - but that is not Wikipedia's purpose. It is commonly accepted that an article needs some notability to be on Wikipedia. It is also commonly accepted that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be listings (of websites, or MUDs) unless there is notability involved (such as a listing of America's richest people). ActsMUD, as cool as the MUD and its theme sounds, doesn't have any notability. Or if it does, it hasn't been shown yet - only examples of non-notability. -- JRavn 14:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete as non-notable. Discount votes from sock/meat puppets. Ifnord 16:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 21:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ruuz

Aricle for a nearly-empty web directory that fails to meet the notability guidelines. It was initially PROD-ed, but both that template and the notability template were removed by the article's creator. - EurekaLott 17:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mo0[ talk] 04:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Applegate Christian Fellowship

Seems like a vanity article, and I'm not convinced of the subject's notability. Katr67 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as non-notable. And isn't vanity a sin? Byrgenwulf 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Artw 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no assertion of notability. Being a mega-church doesn't cut it. GRBerry 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of white powders

Article is of no merit whatsoever; prior VfD led to decision to make this a disamb. page but that has not transpired. Article will never be complete, and there are no simillar pages for other colours. MikeMorley 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment. I moved it from a dab page because it did not meet the criteria for a dab page. I don't think it's adding much value here. -- cmh 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 (contested) - Richardcavell 01:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Nathan Hanneman

Non-notable editor of a non-notable magazine. Less than 2'000 hits for his name, and only 350 for HorrorHound Magazine, the website of which has an Alexa traffic ranking of 1,644,460. RandyWang ( raves/ rants) 10:29, 16 July 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, Mailer Diablo 17:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Porqin 18:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- GWO
  • Keep classic case of a niche sub-culture where the google test is utterly worthless as a measure of notability. The article

establishes clearly that the magazines he edited, and the books he wrote, where exceptional *within* his niche sub-culture. -- Cimon Avaro, on a pogostick

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Punkmorten 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Serguei's Destiny

Non-notable game, doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE Xyzzyplugh 15:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 transwiki to wikibooks cookbook. It does look like something someone made up, let them decide if they want to keep it. - Bobet 12:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Jarabacoa Cocktail

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book. Eluchil404 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Transwiki But Wikibooks cookbooks is! Yank sox 16:36, 16 July 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, Mailer Diablo 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.. This has been on AfD for two weeks with minimal interest, I doubt a second relisting will provoke any of the lacking enthusiasm for this discussion. I feel the silence speaks volumes here, indicating the character is not notable and therefore not deserving of an article. Rje 23:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Zhao Qiang

Delete as a non-notable fictional person. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:32, 16 July 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, Mailer Diablo 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no need for an article on this fictional character. It can be merged to the movies page if appropriate. -- Porqin 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge along with all of the other characters from the series into Dream Team Characters. -- TheFarix ( Talk) 18:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Punkmorten 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Loomlu

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Topic lacks verifiability. — Caesura (t) 17:14, 16 July 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, Mailer Diablo 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Punkmorten 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Symbyo Technologies

Vanity article created by User:Symbyo Naconkantari 18:22, 16 July 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, Mailer Diablo 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mauds Ice Cream

Blatant advertising, no sources cited Atomsprengja 23:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep. Article is not referenced or written in an appropriate style, but the brand is indeed famous in Northern Ireland at least, and has some measure of notability south of the border also. I recommend leaving it unless someone improves it - it is preferable to someone finding nothing under that article title. The article quality is embarrassing, but hey, Wikipedia is full of such articles (just click random article). zoney ♣ talk 23:31, 19 July 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, Mailer Diablo 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, unless someone is willing to rewrite the artile with sources, in neutral prose. -- Porqin 18:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete copyvio from [21] Dlyons493 Talk 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete as copyvio, advertising. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep & Edit Seems to be a legit company, just needs to be edited to remove advert tone. Some users seem to think that every article based on a business must be removed which is not the case.
  • delete. Fails WP:CORP. -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 15:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep I'll try and fix it myself - there's not too much advertising that can't be edited out and there's also some useful information. Is it alright now? - THE GREAT GAVINI { T- C} 14:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete the article is much improved and the copyvio is gone (well done on the cleanup!). But the issue of WP:CORP still remains - if there were a reliable source showing it to be the largest producer in N.I. my feeling is that would meet WP:CORP - the one given in the article may be correct, but I can't lend it much credence (it's a small commercial site). Dale Farm Ice Cream used to be (maybe still is) the brand leader for a long time. Can someone find a reliable source? Dlyons493 Talk 16:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the recently edited version by Greatgavini. Yamaguchi先生 02:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, therefore keep. Nandesuka 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Canadian identity

This page was successfully prodded with the concern, which I concurred with: Entire article is one long POV rant built from sterotypes and leftover material rejected by the main Canada article and related articles such as Culture of Canada, Demographics of Canada, Immigration to Canada, Geography of Canada, Politics of Canada, Multiculturalism, and History of Canada. Article duplicates existing articles and resurects old materials deleted due to their bias with a POV flare. Relisting on AfD after objections were raised on my talk page (listed here as first keep comment). Delete. Kimchi.sg 18:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep - Had I known beforehand that the Canadian identity was on the block to be deleted, I would have objected.... Here are the reasons I propose to keep it...:
  • Length - most articles listed on WP:PROD, in my quick random survey, are short - a sentence to two paragraphs. Canadian identity was considerably longer. The length also supports that it is more than some random user’s vanity page, and has been a collaborative effort, one of the main goals of Wikipedia..
  • Notability - Canada is indeed notable (I hope no one would dispute that). I agree that the question “What does it mean to be a Canadian?” is a slightly different topic, but I would suggest that it is a question that is fundamental to the country. From the American Revolution on, the simple answer was “not American.” Why was Canada formed? In part, to keep from becoming American. The same reason is why British Columbia joined confederation, why the west (now Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) was the subject of a huge drive on the part of the Canadian government to be settled, and why the Yukon Territory was formed. See also Canadian confederation. Canada is also special in the fact that its boundaries were not defined by war, ethic group, or common history, like most other nations (Europe, especially comes to mind).
  • POV - it doesn’t surprise me that the article comes across without a NPOV. By vary nature, the article implies a point of view, because it is about how Canadians see themselves. As noted above, not being American is an important part of that. See “Mild anti-Americanism” in Canadian literature and the article on Molson’s I am Canadian commercials. I would welcome anyone to edit out the POV, but I would challenge them to do so without removing the facts. In any case, the mild POV throughout does not seem to cloud the message
  • Uniqueness of topic - as you noted, the material here does not readily fit elsewhere. The topic is complex enough to require its own article, as demonstrated by its length. I read the articles that you suggested the material should be in, and found no significant overlap.
  • Accuracy - this, above all, it what impressed me most about the article - it explained what it means to be Canadian in a clear, concise, and accurate manner. It is the sort of article I would point my American friends to. The clear explanation in and of itself is reason enough, in my mind, to keep the article.
  • Suggestions for expansion/improvement (things I would be willing to undertake):
    • how the adoption of the maple leaf flag see Image:Flag of Canada.svg has made the maple leaf the Canadian symbol
      • how the maple leaf (or Canadian flag) is frequently attached by Canadian travelers to their backpacks to keep from being mistaken for Americans, who are stereotypically loud and rude
    • British ties, their influence on things such as architecture (I’m thinking of Victoria) and parliament
    • differences between French and Quebecois culture
    • folk songs such as I’s the b’y
    • issues with a united country and culture over the vast distance (it’s over 5000km from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador to Victoria, BC)
    • insuring relevant articles have a link to Canadian identity and the see also section at the end of the article remains relevant
...– Mr Minchin Canada 04:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article definitely needs some cleaning, may have some mild POV-flavouring and so forth, but that's hardly a pair of criterion for deleting it. Rather, those are criteria for improving it.
The article topic is perfectly encyclopaedic
Large sections of the article are well sourced and referenced. Some parts may not be, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The claim that the information is also in other articles is wholly irrelevent. If article A and article B have the same content, they should be merged. But if the information in article A can be found scattered across articles B through Z, it makes sense to also have article A, rather than forcing users to scour 25 articles looking for information on a single topic. WilyD 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is nothing more than an OR rambling social commentary. I highly doubt that any authoritative source has grasped what "Canadian identity" is, and any attempt at doing so is OR. The references provided are, I imagine, also personal and explorative meanderings on the subject, and we cannot base an encyclopedia article on this. Also, at most 3 of them relate directly to the topic at hand, maybe just 1. The article is also riddled with weasel words to account for the lack of academic backing "Many Canadians believe...", "Canadians often like to see themselves as brave warriors", etc. In short, the article is hopelessly and irrevocably OR. AdamBiswanger1 18:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Reporting Pierre Burton's thoughts on what it is to be Canadian is hardly OR, same goes for Robertson Davies. If you have problems with parts of the article, article them and work on it, but to delete this article is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Parts of it may fail WP:OR, but the article does not overall. WilyD 18:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep Come on, people. Of course there are sections that aren't NPoV: they're about how Canadians perceive themselves. It needs cleanup, not a wholesale slaughter. Doogie2K (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Mr Minchin covered all the relevant points. -- ColourBurst 20:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete per nom and AdamBiswanger1. This is an essay masquerading as an encyclopedia entry. It is far too subjective and personal. What constitutes "Canadian identity" mostly a matter of opinion, speculation and conjecture. "Canadian identity" pretty much varies from province to province, region to region and, in many respects, from person to person. Many of the sources cited are opinions in and of themselves. That does not make the statements in the article relying upon those sources factual. Agent 86 21:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I would also like to add that there is an article on Canadian culture. AdamBiswanger1 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep I agree. If the issue is with the POV, it needs a discussion on the talk page, not to be listed on AfD. Canadian identity is unique, it's not American, and it's not British, but a combonation of many different cultures and traditions. - Royalguard11 Talk 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Canadian identity doesn't exist. Neither does American identity or British identity or French identity. Well, it probably does exist, but the idea is far too vague and subjective to warrant an encyclopedia or even a stab at definition. AdamBiswanger1 00:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Maybe that's why there aren't articles on British identity, French identity, Australian identity, Greek identity, or Kenyan identity. (There's one on American identity, but it's really an article about a book.) Agent 86 01:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I actually nominated that redirect for deletion earlier today : ) AdamBiswanger1 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe that there is a seperate Canadian identity. One we've tried to define for 139 years. The main reason we try to make sure people know is so we don't get mixed up with our neighbour to the south. We don't like being called "American's" because we aren't. We have our own identity. In WWI and WWII, we tried to secure our own identity, seperate from the Brits. Now it's from the Yanks. - Royalguard11 Talk 03:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Canadians' obsession with their own identity is one of their core characteristics. The article needs some cleanup, and there will always be some NPOV problems that will need watching, but it still should be kept. -- Whpq 00:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but shorten and rewrite from essay into article. BTW, Canada's borders were also established by war (see French and Indian War and War of 1812). Not sure where some of you got the idea that it wasn't. Deet 11:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
By war, I meant in the way that Isreal established it's borders by the 6 day war; the French and Indian War occured in 1754-63, more than 100 years before Canada was a country (see BNA Act (1867)), and the War of 1812 was more than 50 years before Canada was a country, and ended in status quo ante bellum. The vast majority of US-Canadian borders were established through negotions between the US, Canada, and Britian over the years. -- Mr Minchin Canada 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Further Comment I suppose a section at the top (of the article) should be added explaining the significance of the Canadian identity to Canadians. I think part of this comes down to a discussion of "soft" vs "hard" encyclodeadic enteries. By hard, I mean things like Carbon, something that is defined by facts and figures; by soft, I's refering to topics which are defined by ideas (perhaps like Self-concept). Much policy on Wikipedia seems to have been developed regarding what "hard" topics should and should not be included, but I haven't read anything on the policy of which "soft" topics to include. If someone is aware of such a policy, could they point me there? Thanks, -- Mr Minchin Canada 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per User:Agent 86.
  • Entire article is one long POV rant built from sterotypes and leftover material rejected by the main Canada article and related articles such as Culture of Canada, Demographics of Canada, Immigration to Canada, Geography of Canada, Politics of Canada, Multiculturalism, and History of Canada. Article duplicates existing articles and resurects old materials deleted due to their bias with a POV flare describes this article perfectly, its parts should be split and added to "real" articles on Canada at the most.
  • If anyone took the time to look, the only "real" article that links here is Culture of Canada, the others are nothing more then old mentions on old talk pages.
  • Throw the baby out with the bath water? Heall yeah! and throw it far far away and make sure its dead. The article is so unencyclopaedic its not even funny.
  • By no means does it "explain what it means to be Canadian in a clear, concise, and accurate manner", in fact it does the opposite, pushing an insulting false representation of Canadians everywhere. I would be ashamed to show this to any of my American acquaintances.
  • The very suggestion that this specific " Canadian identity" exists is POV itself, and best described as superficial make-belief (this coming from a proud Canadian).
  • There is no single so-called "Canadian identity", and if you make one for every possible imaginable group, (i.e. Canadian identy (terrorists), Canadian identy (right wingers), Canadian identity (socialists)), where are you going to stop? Are you going to do it for every country? Allowing this article to continue to exist sets a terrible precedence for Wikipedia.
  • Again, most, if not all of it is redundant given that the Culture of Canada article already exists. Also, sections on Frech-Canadians and Quebec have been superseded by Culture of Quebec. 198.103.172.9 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Misza 13 T C 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Arthur "Spud" Spudinski

Right now, this article is complete fanfiction BS, claiming that this character's brothers star on shows on other networks. Even if this was a well-written article, "Spud" isn't notable enough of a character to get his own page and this would need to be merged into the main article. Finally, the page itself isn't a very useful redirect. I vote delete. KingTT 22:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 18:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Vice-grip-strong delete I... uh... what? I'm with the nom- even if the article was the best-written article ever, it still would have insufficient notability. Of course, the state of the article certainly doesn't help. -- Kicking222 23:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. -- DarkAudit 00:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, speedily if possible, per all above. GassyGuy 11:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 21:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of Cars in Forza Motorsport

Reads more like a FAQ; hardly content worthy of an encyclopedia. The equivalent article for Gran Turismo 4 is nominated for the same reason. GSMalette 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This should be merged with this article here: Forza Motorsport.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.221.52.221 ( talk • contribs)

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

The result was speedy delete repost, just sticking {{ db-repost}} on the page would have done the job. Kimchi.sg 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Quantified Marketing Group

This page was nominated and deleted in April 2006 as spam. Fails WP:CORP - not withstanding 1,740,000 hits on Google - supposedly. It meets WP:SPAM. Nominate for Speedy Delete KarenAnn 14:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The Quennells and others

All articles apparently about a British band and its albums/EPs/singles, added by the user 6Z1X1W6: smells to me like a systematic hoax. The following articles are involved:

I've never read about this band in the British press, nor have I heard one of their releases on the radio or seen one in a music store. The only Google results are Wikipedia articles. The Quennells also contains demonstrably false information, e.g. it says 'the band was nominated for two awards at the 2005 Brit Awards' but this is not true. None of the articles cite any sources, reputable or otherwise.

Information about this 'band' has also been added to Island Records [22], 2004 in music [23], All I Have [24], Britpop [25] and List of Britpop musicians [26].

Delete all as a hoax. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 18:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - A 2004 album that sold 5.5 million copies? That would have been one major news story, but I can't find any references to it anywhere - delete as insidious hoax designed to discredit wikipedia and block creator permanently. exolon 18:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks - why do people bother? The pub mentioned (The Albion, Thornhill Road) is a tiny place noted for the garden being larger than the bar. Eddie.willers 18:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ASAP, sanction creator, delete links in other articles. NawlinWiki 18:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per nom, remove edits in other articles, and issue warning to user who wrote these. Wickethewok 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Speedy if poss. Clear hoax. Have begun cleaning up other articles. Ban/block user. You can't assume good faith on such a campaign of fiction. OK. I think I got all the incoming links, though it'd be nice if someone could check. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom. GWO, you were successful. -- Dhartung | Talk 02:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't forget to kill the images that go along with these articles if they are deleted. 68.39.174.238 12:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Punkmorten 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

EDM 2251

A motion in the British parliament that might not be notable even if it passes - but it hasn't passed yet. NawlinWiki 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Punkmorten 22:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Vgcritics

Nonnotable gaming website. NawlinWiki 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Google has < 300 hits for it. Doesn't qualify per WP:WEB, and is an advertisement. -- Porqin 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB badly. — Caesura (t) 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. -- Steel 23:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as vandalism and borderline nonsense. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Reece akhtar

Hoax. — Caesura (t) 18:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Per nom (no WP:V). -- Porqin 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete and tagged as such, patent nonsense (for example, subject supposedly died of AIDS in 1956). NawlinWiki 19:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as author's request. Kimchi.sg 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Nulla bona

I created this article in response to a requested articles listing, but I doubt it will ever be more than a definition (I'm new here so I hope I'm following the policies appropriately) BrentG 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • You're the only author, so you can request a speedy delete. Edit the article and place {{db-author}} at the top. Fan-1967 19:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Punkmorten 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Zero Down

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. --Slgr @ndson ( page - messages - contribs) 19:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Band comprised of members of other notable band, artist on notable indie label. PT ( s-s-s-s) 23:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep based on having at least two members that were with other notable bands. -- Joelmills 03:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - They're a notable band, more notable than many bands already on wikipedia. Tiburon 13:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 20:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Dan Voors

Artist has no albums released, 1st one will not be until October, also has not performed outside of SW Wisconsin. Right not, nn, but in the future could be. Wildthing61476 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Artist's first album released as an EP. Clip from a song off of the EP is available on the artist's Pure Volume page. The October release is a wide release of the EP with a few extra tracks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.233.115 ( talk • contribs)

  • Delete An EP which has one song currently available through the artist's website, is not sufficient to satisfy WP:MUSIC. As WildThing says, maybe in the future, but this artist doesn't seem to qualify yet. Fan-1967 19:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No albums, not signed to a major label and no touring fails most if not all of the guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Artist is not currently notable. DrunkenSmurf 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per above. See also Djv and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djv -- Baron Larf 15:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of Halo 2 changes

Video game cruft. Can be condensed and merged with Halo 2. Doogie2K (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - The important information in this article should be covered in the Halo and Halo 2 articles. The rest of it is minute details that aren't fit for a general encyclopedia. Wickethewok 20:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - an indiscriminate collection of trivia, suitable for a fansite, but unlikely to be useful in an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Gamecruft Artw 22:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Whispering 23:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 09:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, with reservations Strictly speaking, this article is unecessary. A lot of it doesn't really merit coverage and things like the changes to the weapons and vehicles should have been in their respective articles, but those were deleted. There's no good place for some of the information now, some of which is both verifiable and worth keeping. Ace of Sevens 10:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seeing as you all have destroyed every other article this info was in, why delete this one too? Can you find an example where this page violates Wikipedia's rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs ( talk • contribs)
    • Comment Note that I said condense and merge. There's no reason why this can't be summarized on the main Halo 2 article. It is relevant when speaking of Halo 2, but not notable to the point of requiring s separate article. That's the distinction. Doogie2K (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • AfD is not the place for merge requests. You need to us the {{mergeto}} or {{mergefrom}} templates if that's what you want. Ace of Sevens 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close. See the reaction for the merge requests first. Incidentally, I agree with the merge, this topic doesn't need its own article, but the merge should be attempted first. -- SevereTireDamage 08:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: AfD is not the place to propose a merge. try using {{ mergto}} and {{ mergefrom}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia!= Gamefaqs. + Fin 13:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The factr that the nom propsed a merge does not mean that the game guide should not be deleted. Wikipedia's not the place for game guide information. Proto:: type 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Much of this could be put in relevant articles, for instance List of Weapons in the Halo Universe, but... oh, wait, those were deleted too! In fact, you've deleted every and any article this information could be disseminated to. Huh. David Fuchs 17:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Actually it seems like the important changes could be added to Halo 2 easily. Also, the articles of which you speak were deleted by general consesus of WP editors, not by any single user. Wickethewok 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 MOVED TO A SUBPAGE OF THE HALO WIKIPROJECT. This is article is a mess, and the delete opinions are absolutely right that this is unsourced and better covered elsewhere. That said, a lot of this could be sourced and either turned into a proper spinoff article of Halo: Combat Evolved or just merged there. I'm going to send this to that project to use as raw material for better articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 09:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved

Video game cruft. Can be condensed and merged with Halo: Combat Evolved. Doogie2K (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - as it is, this is a terrible article full of original research and individual weapon listings for each map. After deleted, if anyone wants to start a more encyclopedic article complete with (gasp!) sources, I would not oppose that. However, this article is bad to the point that I don't want to see anyone base a new article off of this one or even to have it in the article history. Wickethewok 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, starting with a rewrite -- from scratch if necessary. The original Halo did advance the state of multiplayer gaming, and its place in gaming history is based as much on the success of its multiplayer as on its allegedly compelling story, so a separate article on the subject would be justified. However, after wading through this article, I had learned very little about the advances Halo actually made; most of this is an overdetailed exposition of all the aspects of Halo multiplayer that didn't set it apart from previous games!
    Well, the bit about warthog jumping was quite interesting, but that section seems to be talking about a trick that was developed and normally performed in single-player mode... — Haeleth Talk 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - already covered elsewhere, better. Artw 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the fact that Wikipedia is not a game guide which this article is and the article also violates WP:NOR. Whispering 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 09:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Unlike the Halo 2 article, where I said keep, this one seems to be padded out with fluff. It's not original research, though. Things like player culture and gametypes should be covered, but the map list is overly detailed at best and perhaps unecessary. Revise it and see if there's enough left to justify a separate article still. And merge requests shoudl be done with merge tags, not AfDs. Ace of Sevens 10:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete People just add junk to it. I rewrote a lot of it, but it's mostly still just rubbish - why should corpse humping, modding and a description of each level be in a multiplayer article? + Fin 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Split into other articles. This article has some valid content, but it really doesn't all belong in the same place like this. -- gakon5 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Numerous parts of the article, including about half of the map list, look like they belong in a strategy guide. Woodrow Buzard 02:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per Haeleth and Ace of Sevens. It definitely needs a rewrite to trim out the overly specific map detail (doesn't need weapons lists and pictures for every map), and sources (especially for things like the supposed crotch-humping). -- SevereTireDamage 08:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Corpse humping is a fairly common thing in online games, espeically in FPSs; not just in Halo. It's also become a fairly fixated part of FPS subculture. -- gakon5 18:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Good, then it shouldn't be hard to find sources for that particular aspect. Wickethewok 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Condense and merge to Halo: Combat Evolved. The original research, unencyclopedic information and generally low quality of writing make this article impossible to keep, but there are some elements here that could be used in Halo's article. JimmyBlackwing 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there is already a brief and sufficient overview of this information in the parent article, no need to merge anything. Proto:: type 11:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Halo: Combat Evolved. Or at least look over this to see if anything can be added to the Halo article. -- Quadraxis 20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or merge until a properly sourced article on multiplayer can be written. It has encyclopedic potential, but the material needs a rewrite. — TKD:: Talk 23:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to the closing admin: Please delink and delete {{ halomap}} as a {{ db-author}} request if this is anything but outright kept the list of maps is condensed or deleted. That template serves only to aid in linking to subsections of this article, and is pointless without this article. — TKD:: Talk 23:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Otto Witte. Already done. Ifnord 16:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Otto I of Albania

Article is a hoax, or at least a suspected one with strong evidence, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Article of questionable validity about Albania The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • If Otto Witte is true, then this should redirect to that. If otto Witte is also nonsense, then both articles should be deleted. User:Zoe| (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Otto Witte while merging if there is anything to be merged; this article in Time is a reference from a reputable source. -- Lambiam Talk 20:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Otto Witte as described above. Future research may show that his tale of kingship was false but it appears the man really existed.-- Cam 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Otto Witte. Whether true or false, it is verifiable. Curtains99 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of social networking websites

Listcruft. Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. We have some categories that do this job. -- Chris (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep I too have used this list for a recent discussion on online social networking sites and without this list I would have been lost!!! As other folks have noted below, this list is not a list of links, but rather examples of social network sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belindalibrarian ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC). reply
  • Strong Keep I've found this page to be useful for research purposes on multiple occassions. In addition it seems to be well referenced and is a demonstration of the type of fresh data that can easily be put together and presented via wiki.
  • Keep, this is a useful page that lets you see at a glance how many SNSes actually have a certain amount of members, as well as specifically focused services, and who is allowed to register. It's well-maintained and has a lot of good sources. Ashibaka tock 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment an awful lot of those sites seem to violate WP:WEB. Artw 21:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep as a very useful and well-researched list. Czj 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep; useful information, and it does do something categories can't. Spam appears to be common but speedily removed. My only concern is that while it's well maintained now, it would not be immediately obvious if that stopped being the case, at which point it would quickly become misleading; that's not a reason to delete it by any means, but I would urge the maintainers to consider ways of mitigating the problem (perhaps change the "User count" heading to something like "User count as of 2006"?) — Haeleth Talk 22:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Many of the references list the dates the information was gathered. Czj 17:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, wikipedia is not a directory, and I cannot see any useful comparitive value in what are apparently a completely disparate set of websites. If sites are notable they should have their own article and should be in an appropriate category. -- pgk( talk) 09:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep We have lists of instant messengers, web browsers, etc. I don't see why we shouldn't have a list of social networking sites. However, spam is a huge concern. I propose we permanently semi-protect the article, like RuneScape. Or vote to prohibit anonymous editing on Wikipedia. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Having other lists is irrelevant, many of those are possibly potential deletion candidates, but regardless we are discussing the merits of this particular article not any other. -- pgk( talk) 15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, but the nominator proposed this by appealing to existing Wikipedia consensus (i.e., WP:NOT) rather than arguing why we shouldn't have such lists. It's therefore relevant to point out the existance of large numbers of "List of" articles, since that suggests that lists aren't against this consensus.
In fact, just take a look at Category:Lists, with all the subcategories and who knows how articles. Are we debating that many or all of those lists should be deleted too, or is there something special about this article? So far the arguments put forward suggest the former, but it's probably better to raise this somewhere more general. Mdwh 19:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Firstly, I disagree this comes under WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information - I don't believe it comes under any of those examples listed, and disagree this is indiscriminate. Secondly, Categories do not display user counts, description/focus and registration type, so it is not true that they do the job. Thirdly, in response to Pgk, I disagree this comes under wikipedia is not a directory - that refers to excessive external links in an article, not these "Lists of Wikipedia Articles", of which there are many examples on Wikipedia. Mdwh 18:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this looks like a useful comparison that collects information in a form that can't be found anywhere else. Much of the information is cited. If there are non-notable sites or unverifiable claims they should be removed, but that doesn't justify deleting the article. Wmahan . 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Mdwh's reasons. — getcrunk what?! 20:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep category alone doesn't reflect member numbers or membership criteria. Stev0 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep doesn't look too indiscriminate to me. -- Liface 21:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Not indiscriminate, and attempts to be a useful list. Some citations would be useful where needed, though. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This list seems very usefull. I propose we permanently semi-protect the article, and add a request for add for spam-filter. NickVet419 21:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Useful list. Englishrose 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I understand the doubts about this article, but a few of us are pretty vigilant about keeping it "discriminate" and free of linkspam. It's not easy--this and articles like it are an obvious target for promotion. ·  rodii · 01:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. But add a column that specifically gives the date associated with each user count. And lock the article. JohnSmart 22 July 2006
  • Keep per Ashibaka & others. —  Natha n ( talk) / 02:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there are tons of sites out there so i was thinking... Exsept those that are networking sites, thats what the list is for... If its not wikipedable-notible, keep it to just a link to the site... who says one network site is better than another. NickVet419 06:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but remove the user count column, unless all sites can be compared on an equal footing - eg. audited user figures from the same source. Otherwise it is open to inaccuracy and abuse. -- Ste 13:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep — I appreciate that this list is prone to spam additions but a number of us have worked hard to keep these removed. I think it's useful, any non-notable sites listed should be taken to AfD and if deleted, removed from the list └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep This is an informative, useful list. Doctor Bruno 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: As I said above, I'm all for keeping this, but perhaps we should rename this to "List of notable social networking websites" since that's what it really is. Czj 17:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve / fix. Lists are more useful than categories. We just need to make sure all sites listed are notable and belong in wiki, to keep it from being spammed. -- George100 22:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I find this list a useful tool that I use quite frequently. Noah 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No vote. The current list is fine as long as it's properly maintained. My concern is that it's spam fodder, so I'm wary of endorsing it. -- Alan Au 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's pretty well-compiled (hence the references) and can definately see how one can make good use out of it. DrWho42 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This page collates additional information into a useful table, similarly to Comparison of instant messengers. This adds value beyond a category. — Michael Shields 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep This page is awesome, and one of the ones I go to most frequently on the wiki. What's the benefit in deleting it? Please keep it - it's a topic that almost everyone is interested in now, and it is really really good information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.66.59.179 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. It's usefull. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manav.arya on the discussion page by mistake, and copied here. • ( talk contribs) .
  • Strong Delete This list seems mainly to promote social networking sites. Tried to add socialseeker.com at one point and was deleted for that very reason, but the main sites seem to stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imabadfish ( talk • contribs)
Comment - Presumably because it's non-notable (98 Google hits, and the article was deleted). I don't see how conforming to WP:WEB is an argument against having an article! Mdwh 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep -- Yunipo 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per the reasons stated above, with support for some wording about notability. Oh, and that it is quite helpful in my Test-MySpace template. :) — WAvegetarian• (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - too too many websites have been deleted from the list without a real reason , while another silly websites been listed , i consider this article as an advertisment page . Ammar 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mystral Tide

Nonnotable experimental music project, 171 unique Ghits, article still says their CD is "expected to arrive in 2005". NawlinWiki 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to delete. Please put the citations in, and I hope that everyone who contributed will keep an eye on this article. - brenneman {L} 06:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Glassing

All this article says is that sometimes people in bars fight each other with broken glass. No explanation of whether the term is notable other than one ref. to one film. NawlinWiki 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - as neologism per nom. I enjoy Nawlin's description of the article "sometimes people in bars fight each other with broken glass". Maybe leave as stub with that as the only content? <--joke. Wickethewok 20:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No vote - Per new sources, though it may still be just a dicdef. Wickethewok 18:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep it's a notable term and activity outside of Trainspotting. The article is gash though. Artw 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I've heard the phrase used (in the UK) for quite some time (even before Trainspotting, to which the article refers), so I don't think it qualifies as a protologism or even a neologism there. The trouble is finding a reliable source for it - there's no such definition in the OED's entry on "glass", and I'm not sure of Wikipedia's policies on slang terms and how to reference them. As slang goes it may be quite localised, probably not a term that's well-known outside the UK. Nevertheless, the article is a bit of mess, and I can't see it becoming much more than a dicdef, so move to Wikitionary only if a good source can be located, otherwise weak delete. ~ Matticus  T C 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: why do we need sources other than the one the article already provides? Does the term's use in a well-known work of literature, which was widely praised for its accurate portrayal of the vernacular, not count as a reliable source for its existence as a slang term? All that's really missing is page references. That notwithstanding, the dicdef issue remains, and I'm not sure I can think of much else to say about it either... — Haeleth Talk 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and a movie that simply uses a word in its dialogue is not a source for the concept that the word denotes. A reliable source for this article would describe what glassing actually is and discuss the concept. A quotation is not a reference. Quotations showing a word in use are what Wiktionary articles require. References describing concepts are what Wikipedia articles require. Uncle G 00:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Various conjugations of the verb "to glass" have this meaning in the UK. Quite well known and certainly not a neologism. Still, basically a dicdef. See, for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/rsod/stories/1.shtml http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=9792006 http://www.wonkette.com/politics/party-crash/team-party-crash-national-press-foundation-awards-dinner-156758.php -- GWO
    • Good work on that research there, GWO. Those really strengthen the case for keeping the article. If someone can use these to expand the article into describing the problem, talking about the steps taken by bars, event organisers, etc. to avoid them and so on, it'll become more than a dicdef too. ~ Matticus  T C 16:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I echo that praise. There's also http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/64394-print.shtml . Given these sources, which discuss glassing and the political issues surrounding it, it appears that this article can be edited into a proper, referenced, article on the subject that can be more than a perpetual stub. Please put all of the sources that you have found into the article so that editors can use them to expand and clean up the article. Keep. Uncle G 11:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as neologism. Massmato 16:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think that word means what you think it means -- GWO
  • Keep Its a fairly well known term in the UK, and as Uncle G says, there should be enough information to turn this into a proper referenced article. I seem to remember the Manchester Evening News running a campaign to change the type of glass used in pubs and nightclubs following a series of such incidents. Oldelpaso 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I've done a slight expansion and added a couple of refs. Oldelpaso 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Transforming “victimhood” to peacemaking agencies

I incorrectly marked this as a speedy delete for Original Research (thanks OwenX!), so I bring this here. This is an essay, original research and I suspect a possible copyvio. Wildthing61476 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom. Owen× ☎ 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Fabricationary 20:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, who could also have added "opinion piece" to the list. Agent 86 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment did I forget to mention POV article? :) Wildthing61476 21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - it's even signed by it's author. Artw 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I strongly suspect this is a copyvio, as the author's name doesn't match username, but I couldn't find this thing with a few moments of googling. Might have been copied off of a print source. It's not encyclopedia material at all, though... -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 12:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The authors name certainly doesnt match the username, because the two are entirely different. If you had taken the trouble of actually contacting either the author or hte username, you would realize that I (dipenda) am the Director, Programs at the Alliance for Peace-Nepal, and that we are working to enable and empower the youth in Nepal. One of the things we do is write up articles, and try and publicize it. If writing our own articles and submitting them to various websites constitutes a violation of copyright laws, then perhaps i need to study copyright laws properly. Sorry if thats the case. dipenda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by dipenda ( talk • contribs) .
    • Sorry, we tend to be very paranoid what comes to copyright and licencing, and I for one had no idea and you have to admit the name didn't look like an acronym or anything, and you didn't even have an user page. (Organisations rarely just walk up and contribute something. Usually, when you see a copy-paste posting like this, it's more likely to be work of a random, unrelated, well-intentioned party who isn't aware of Wikipedia's licencing issues.) So apologies. Either way, there's possibility of copyright violation here, still: You're merely the publisher, not the author; has the author assigned the copyright of the article to you? If not, I sure hope they're aware of the fact that their work is distributed under GFDL, know exactly what it means, and they approve of it. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 13:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Green Kovai Movement

Advertisement for a course in India. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 CSD G4 repost. Kimchi.sg 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

IBM Korea

Recreation of Hankook IBM, which was deleted (See: log.) - Slo-mo 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - recreation of deleted content (db-repost). Fabricationary 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Simple coffee

Spam for a company that is not even trading yet Nuttah68 20:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong delete I originally posted the NPOV tag, but seeing as the article has not been cleaned up I agree per nom. Spam flavored coffee, eww... Wildthing61476 20:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. -- M e rovingian ( T, C, @) 20:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. JianLi 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Mystache 00:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Trance Emerson

I don't see any assertion of notability in this long article about a trance musician. Speedy tag removed w/o explanation. NawlinWiki 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Seems like a definite vanity article...just look at the edit history. I'll pu the speedy tag back up. JianLi 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rje 23:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of World War II books

An unmaintainable and most probably never complete list Nuttah68 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. JianLi 20:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Historiography of World War II (which needs as much material as it can get its hands on at the moment). Kirill Lokshin 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and pretty much the same reasons I gave in List of songs about World War II, above. Agent 86 21:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Possibly this would work as a category? Artw 21:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — There's a vast body of literary work relating to this war, so I think, per Artw, that this would work better as a category. — RJH ( talk) 18:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I support Artw's suggestion of category creation instead. Ifnord 16:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 11:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Chess and music

This article is poorly conceived and written. It is not clear, whether in the title or the body, if it is about chess players who enjoy music, musicians who enjoy chess, or both. JianLi 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Chess players have a lot of different preferences. That doesn't mean an article should be created for each one of them. Any personal preferences of players could be added in the players article itself-- Ageo020 20:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, otherwise we are on the path to all kinds of listcruft sillyness. Artw 21:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a totally arbitrary topic. SubSeven 22:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for unanimous deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 {{ Widirect}}. - brenneman {L} 06:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Bags

Wikipedia is not a Wikitionary - Ratarsed 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to wiktionary. Pls note, there is no need to list this on AfD, just redirect it. Plus, who knows, maybe someone will make it into something encyclopedic one day, like backpack. Themindset 20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. We can't do interwiki redirects on things like this. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think the Australian/NZ usage is interesting if it can be verified. Irongargoyle 22:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If you are interested in usages of words, then you are a lexicographer, and Wiktionary will welcome you. Wiktionary takes all of the word usage information that people have. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionary articles are about words. An encyclopaedia article would be about a person, place, concept, event, or thing. Please name the person, place, concept, event, or thing that this article is about. Uncle G 00:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'm relatively sure it's used in some parts of the UK, too, although actually verifying it is beyond me, unless "my brother uses it all the time" counts :P BigHaz 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I recall its use in the UK when I was a kid 50 odd years ago. -- Bduke 06:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I can confirm that it is used in Australia as claimed. The Macquarie Dictionary defines it as "--verb (t) (bagsed, bagsing)

(usually in children's speech) to make a claim for: I bags sitting on the outside. Also, Especially Qld, bar. [third person singular of BAG to put into a bag (as of a hunting trophy), used for all persons]" I bags suggesting that we can transwiki it. Capitalistroadster 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 all. Mailer Diablo 21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The Quantum Repairmen, Stupid Artistic Bastard, Astronauts (album)

Notability in question. ghits: [27] -- NMChico24 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete all Absolutely no notability is asserted, partly because there's no notability to be found. Albums by non-notable artists are rarely, if ever, notable, and these albums (a demo and an EP) don't assert any added significance of any kind. -- Kicking222 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I agree, however the Admin who reviewed the speedy that I initally placed on the article felt that "notability clearly asserted. doesn't qualify for CSD." So, here we are. Thanks for your input! -- NMChico24 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all - Band does not meet WP:MUSIC - Touring only in Virginia (according to their website), and their label appears to only have one other band. -- Joelmills 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 19:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Labour Studies Student Association

Seems like a non notable student organisation. — Fire Fox 20:56, 21 July '06

  • Delete per nom. And if we allow this one, millions of other nn societies will want pages. -- Steel 23:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is nothing notable here -- Alias Flood 00:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, most student orgs aren't notable. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

City Limits

Page was originally delete as a non-notable Flash animation. Current page is for a "show about four friends living on the outskirts of the same city. There is basically no chance of this show ever becoming any kind of show." Need I continue with the nomination? No Google hits, no info of this being legitimate. Wildthing61476 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Backstab

Speedied as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is not sufficient grounds for a speedy delete, so bringing to AfD for consensus.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, and it's not even worth a merge into a gaming jargon article. The author claims it is a 'term coined in multiplayer games' but the application of the term as described in gaming is no different than the normal definition of the word. SubSeven 22:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per both above. -- Steel 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Ratarsed 17:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for unanimous deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Azdrubal Fontes Bayardo

A Formula One driver who never qualified for a race and didn't even register a time in the one race he tried to quallify for - non-notable Robertsteadman 21:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - this wasn't his only race by any means - just his only Championship Grand Prix. That's the problem with a lot of these articles - they suggest that a driver only raced in F1, which is never the reality. AFB almost certainly took part in other Grand Prix and many other types of race as well. It's just a matter of finding out what else he did. He would never have made it as far as a Championship Grand Prix without achieving at least a reasonable amount elsewhere. We need someone with some time to exapnd the article, not delete it. Bretonbanquet 21:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the article has existed for well over a year - there's been plenty of time and there seems to be no other info available - back then some "rickh kids" simply bought their way to car seats.... maybe he didn't do anything else. Anywa, with no evidence, no achievement and over a year for the article to expand..... Robertsteadman 11:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete Easily fails WP:BIO's criteria for sportspeople. A Google search of "Azdrubal Fontes Bayardo" brings up less than 10 unique results; of these, half are from WP and mirrors, and the other half list his name and nothing more. Thus, there is no verifiable information about him, so even if he did race in other circuits, there's no way he was notable enough (or, if he was, no way to prove it) to merit inclusion in WP. -- Kicking222 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, after just a minute or two on Google, I have found several things about him, such as the fact that he won the first race at El Pinar in Montevideo, in a Maserati 4CLT-Chevrolet. His middle name was Esteban, he apparently died just recently on July 9, and his nickname was Pocho. Just skipping over some South American sites, I can see a few results for him. When you Google, you do clearly have to bear in mind that people's names can be mispelt, particularly in this guy's case - and his surname 'Fontes' is often mistaken for a middle name. Rather than making assumptions about his career that you weren't able to confirm, leave this article for a while so that it can be expanded. I have flagged it on the Project page, so someone (or I can do it myself when I have time) will come and put some flesh on the bones. Bretonbanquet 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you could provide links to these articles? As for leaving it a while - it has had well over a year. Robertsteadman 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, it's had over a year, but there are a lot of driver articles out there that need work, and as you have seen, Fontes Bayardo isn't the easiest to research. I know you're just gagging to delete it, but rest assured there is more information out there if you know how to look for it properly. In order to defeat the fatwa on this article, I will attempt to expand it today. Bretonbanquet 17:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Even with more information he is still non-notable and does not meet the criteria fro inclusion. Robertsteadman 18:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, you'd better start deleting the other dozens and dozens of similarly notable or non-notable racing drivers then. What has made you judge Fontes Bayardo to be non-notable? There's nothing in WP:BIO which suggests he's non-notable, having competed in motor racing at the highest level in South America during the 1950s. Bretonbanquet 19:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree -there is much to delete on WP because some fanatics have added it but these articles do not meet notability levels - I'm sure their mums are proud but that's about it. Robertsteadman 19:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Instead of being flippant, why don't you actually explain why you have decided that Fontes Bayardo is not notable? He has won Formula 1 races in South America - he is notable. I see that college football players who haven't actually played for their team are notable - is this some kind of bad joke? Bretonbanquet 19:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I appreciate that to non-followers of motorsport, Bayardo may seem too obscure but I'm afraid that not being able to appreciate the importance of his exploits shouldn't be a reason for deleting the article. The South American racing scene at the time was thriving and was almost as important as the European scene. A driver who did well in the South American formulae therefore cannot be ignored simply because he was a 'rich kid' or because he doesn't appear in a lot of english language websites. Personally I find wikipedia is enjoyable BECAUSE of articles like this which educate and inform, instead of the usual tittle tattle about obscure local 'celebrities' that others deem worthy of gracing the internet. I do agree however that the article ought to be expanded a little more. Type-R 00:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep At least as notable as the many NCAA athletes that pass SPORTS_BIO due to wikipedia's pro-US-college sports bias. -- GWO
Surely that's a reason to delete them as well as this rather than fill up WP with non-notables? ;-) Robertsteadman 08:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, yes. But WP:BIO is policy, so the least we can do is apply that policy even-handedly w.r.t. people with the affrontery not to be Americans. -- GWO
Comment - I have expanded this article a little more, to include AFB's two race wins at the highest level of South American motor racing. This alone is enough to merit his inclusion. Bretonbanquet 12:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Measurements of "notability" by things like Google are practically irrelevant here. An American football player could be 'linked' to the New England Patriots and suddenly there are 1000s of articles about him on the internet. Had Bayardo been racing today, there would most likely be 100s of articles on the internet about him too. This does not make him less notable, just because the internet was not around at that time for thousands of amateur experts or news writers to write about his latest performance. Winning the aforementioned races is huge compared to the notability claims of a Doctor Who villain who appeared in one series, or a footballer who made 2 appearances for Arsenal and then went out on loan, but these produce 2,900 and 46,200 Google hits respectively. Deleting this article would be showing blatant bias to those living in the time of the internet, where the slightest newsworthy piece of information produces dozens and dozens of webpages. [/end rant, I hope you get my point] – AlbinoMonkey ( Talk) 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Any idea how few Uruguayan drivers made it even this close to F1?! Uruguay being one of the poorer relations in the South American motor racing scene. A scene which stands in a similar relationship to Europe as it does in Soccer (no, I don't normally call it that, but I'm guessing that link is at least unambiguous!) - i.e. pretty important. Albinomonkey also makes an excellent point regarding 'Internet bias'. I also note that WP:BIO is explicitly not policy. I wouldn't personally have an objection to some of these drivers being grouped into larger articles though - Uruguyan Racing Drivers if anyone wants to put the work in on the redirects, but I know some others have different views on that. 4u1e 18:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Steven Rohde

Probable non-notable person, but ~500 google hits. I might be missing something obvious here though. — Fire Fox 21:14, 21 July '06

  • Delete. It's just nonsense. He founded Rhode Island? No. Fan-1967 21:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Obvious vanity/patent nonsense. User's only contribution. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Fan-1967. -- Steel 23:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The MBADiversity Organization

Reads like an advertisement/vanity. If you check the edit history, it has been created by a user of the same name. JianLi 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Bobiwan

PROD removed without discussion. Does not assert or seem to meet WP:WEB. -- W.marsh 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, does not appear to be a website that uniquely differenciates itself from other sites, and does not meet WP:WEB. Yank sox 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A site started this year, which is hosted on a free web space provider, with only one relevant GHit in the top 100 (and not the site itself, I might add). Definately doesn't pass WP:WEB there. ~ Matticus  T C 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. By a long way. Just zis Guy you know? 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion of all related articles. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Nj auto insurance

Author has created numerous pages with the same information, all spam to his website. Prod removed by author, and author has been warned about spam. Wildthing61476 21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Additional pages are
Car part
Car forum
Car questions
Auto repair advice Wildthing61476 21:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as spam. Possibly speedy? Artw 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Can't figure why these aren't {{db}} as linkspam... -- Ssbohio 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • (Speedy) delete all per nom. -- Bigtop ( tk| cb| em| ea) 22:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete all per nom. east . 718 22:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete all per above. -- Steel 23:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete all, although some of those might be reasonable redirects to various legitimate articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Blackarms studios

PROD removed without discussion. Article about a website/forum. Does not assert or seem to meet WP:WEB.

  • Delete - It's probably more of organisation than a website, but it still fails notability. Artw 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not notable -- Whpq 00:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 tagged as copyvio and sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Ifnord 05:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Layered double hydroxides

I'm sure this is a copyright violation, but I don't have the source to take it to WP:CP. In addition to the usual red flags, the original version of the article refers to "Figure 1.7", "Figure 1.8", "Section 1.5.1", and "Section 1.4.5", strongly suggesting that it was copied from a larger work. Melchoir 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: The copy vio is from the Journal of Materials Chemistry, see this page. I'll tag it as copyvio. Ifnord 03:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks! Are we supposed to close the AfD now, or what? Melchoir 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Roy A. A. 19:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Core values

This article is a mess! It reads like a business seminar, and is devoid of any salvegeable information. On top of that, it might be in violation of copyright. JianLi 22:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - if you check the references cited, you will indeed find that it is indeed a copyright violation as it is an almost word for word copy with only slight cosmetic text modifications. And in any case, there's already some similar information in strategic planning. -- Whpq 00:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
So in the case of copyright violation, should this be moved to speedy deletion? JianLi 04:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 11:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

South Portland Sewing Centre

De-prod by page's creator. There was some effort to eliminate the spam aspect, but I still don't think this meets WP:CORP, NN Local business/vanity Irongargoyle 22:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As the nominator says, it fails WP:CORP. It seems to be a very localized business. The article was probably created by an employee or owner. This possibility seems exceedingly likely after reading the first revision. Srose (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom -- Alias Flood 00:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 21:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of free software authors

No references cited; list is populated by non-noteworthy people, judging from redlinks; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information JianLi 22:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:NOT. Might be okay as a category, but not as a list. -- Alan Au 00:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Listcruft. Ifnord 03:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Alan Au. -- H·G ( words/ works) 05:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Categorise those famous enough: Linus, RMS, etc. -- GWO
  • Strong Keep' -- Vergardio 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 PENDING. This won't be an easy close, so I'm going to spend some time reading and marking any comments I disregarded. I'm just tagging this for now so it doesn't change while I'm deciding. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The result was DELETE. This entire page hinges on one source, and it has been established to my satisfaction that that one source isn't describing a settlement, but instead an arbitrary point. Should someone discover a reliable source independent of Fallingrain that establishes that this is a settlement instead of an arbitrary location, this article could be recreated. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Gnaa, Nigeria

Article has no evidence of the subject's existence, neither does any Google search Shadow1 23:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong delete This article was created by a troll account. It has no references outside of GNAA press statements, a dubious geography website backed by "Falling Rain Genomics" (note the similarity to the GNAA press release regarding creating people from spare nig___ parts) and another website which says that you can't trust it. This is crap and ridiculous that it has survived two already. — WAvegetarian• (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: If llywrch says it is trustworthy I'll go with that, but they likely didn't go to those coordinates and ask the locals what they call the place. Hyperbole? Yes, but my point is that they would have had to get it from some other reliable source. — WAvegetarian• (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 'Strong keep'neutral for now Article asserts existence and Google confirms - see e.g. the link in the article itself. Dlyons493 Talk 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Umm, see the objections raised about that link. Please explain why that link and another sketchy site that probably copied the info are the only places in the entirety of cyberspace that mention this place outside of GNAA press releases. — WAvegetarian• (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Hadn't realised there's a history to this one! I've used the site in the article before and found it OK, also did a fairly cursory Google and found it on [28]. Will research a bit more before deciding. Can someone add links to previous two AfD's please.
Weak keep The tutiempo site doesn't count as independent confirmation - it just mirrors fallingrain in some way as far as I can see. Still NGA does have it also so, while that's not infallible, the balance of probablility is that the place does exist (in some fashion). Dlyons493 Talk
  • Strong delete per WAvegetarian Jibbles | Talk 23:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Cheerfully speedy delete Weary, very weak keep with a strong desire to revisit in 2 months -- and then drive a stake through its heart. If you look at the last AfD, nobody fought harder to get this non-notable hoax deleted. I'm just not comfortable re-AfD'ing right away. Somehow it seems like maybe it's against the rules. Talk me out of this notion and I'll be at the head of the "speedy delete" line. In the meantime, feel free to look at all the links I produced on the last AfD. See the links I've added later in this RfA. Whatever the concerns about fallingrain.com, the NGA link convinced me that there really is a clearing or rock in Nigeria with that name. But then again, see what else I dug up about NGA names -- they list every possible name there's ever been including mountains, 829 undersea features and 8 different "places" in the Vatican. I may be in Makurdi in 2-3 weeks; I wish I had time to drive by those coordinates and take a picture of the squash field or whatever's there -- it won't be a town! Oh, and this time around ,let's invite some of Wikipedia's Nigerian editors to look at this.-- A. B. 23:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I left a non-committal (hopefully NPOV) notices on the Africa-related regional notice board and several Nigerians' talk pages advising them of the AfD
  • Weak delete - as far as I can see the original was a redirect to the GNAA page, Freakofnurture (who doesn't appear to be a troll unless we are voting them in as admins) created the Nigeria stub later, but... since the only mainspace link to it is from the GNAA page, it has no references so fails WP:OR, and is a non-notable stub, I say even if it's true, it's not necessary. Yomangani 23:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Bigtop ( tk| cb| em| ea) 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If it can't be verified in a reliable source (and so far, it can't), we're better off without it. - Nunh-huh 00:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Nunh-huh's rationale. If the info could truly be verified, it would be a different story. But since there's no proof this place exists, we should just get rid of its article.
  • Delete. The map source shows that such a place exists, but not all places are notable. Those maps show even villages that are notable only to the three people who live in them. -- Ezeu 01:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per WAvegetarian -- gozar 01:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm out on a limb, I realize it. But this website also lists it as a place plus lists nearby cities. It can't be that underpopulated. It also appears on this website. So we have a city that is verifiable; I can't see tossing that without proof of non-notability. I don't think broadband Internet access is that common in that part of the world so I wouldn't use Google hits to show non-notability. Ifnord 02:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment:
  • Delete. A. B. has dug deep on this one, and I can not argue with his knowledge of the area. If he says it's not there then I defer to him. Ifnord 18:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks -- I'm flattered. I actually knew nothing before seeing the name come up in the list of AfDs (the 2nd AfD) a few days ago. I had just received this Nigerian map (for a business trip) the same day and was intrigued to see if I could find it on the map. What I've written on this page represents the sum total of what I know about this area. -- A. B. 19:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is obviously a real place. It can be clearly seen using Google Earth at the co-ordinates indicated in the article, which matches EXACTLY the location listed at Falling Rain Genomics webpage, additionally it can be searched and appears on Mapquest [ [29]] and (strangely enough) appears at the prescribed co-ordinates. It also appears at indexmundi.com [ [30]] How many times does there need to be a discussion? Do we just keep voting until those who want this article deleted get the result they want? The continuing nomination for deletion is almost disruptive. Looking for this city on Google Earth and Mapquest is not exactly time-intensive, nor difficult - the nominators and supporters of deletion of this article should have at least taken the time to verify whether or not this is a real place using these common tools before nominating this article yet again.-- Nicodemus75 02:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment:
Comment/Response I realize that this has been up twice before and only very recently reached no consensus. I was not aware of the article until just recently. And no, I wasn't brought in by someone wishing for it to be deleted. I hate that sometimes the most aggressive side in an argument wins based on tenacity rather than true consensus. I hate seeing AfD abused this way as much as I hate seeing wheel warring. That said, the first AfD resulted in keep because there were places online that mentioned it. The validity of those sources wasn't really brought into question. I read a bunch of stuff on teh interwebs, but I'm not sure where they got their data from. In the second AfD, only one keep was added after the verifiability of the online sources was questioned. The validity was questioned at the end of the discussion. This second discussion seems to have been focussed on a content dispute over whether the GNAA should be mentioned in the article and whether the town was notable apart from that. Obviously a real town in Nigeria is just as notable as the gazillions of U.S. census data articles. This resulted in no consensus. Given that something new was raised at the end and didn't seem to have been addressed, I thought that it was worth talking about. I looked at Google Earth well before this nomination occurred and saw that indeed that area of Nigeria is used for agriculture. There are fields and forest there, but I don't see anything that would have a population of 6000+. Given how close by all the "towns" listed on the nona site are, the population density would have to be pretty high to get that many people before crossing the municipality boundary. Index Mundi != Google Earth. It is a data overlay over satellite images. If you had actually searched using Google Earth, as you incivilly implied I hadn't, you would find that it points to the Free Software Foundation in Boston. You can use Google Maps to search for Gnaa, Nigeria and return the same result. I don't feel this is disruptive any more than deletion review is. I have no intention of nomming this again. The only thing that seems obvious to me about this whole episode is that the GNAA is having fun with it, people are upset that we might be furthering systemic bias, and we really don't seem to have a good way of determining what's actually out there other than personal interpretation of low resolution satellite images from Google. My last comment goes back to Nicodemus75's assumptions. Neither the nominator nor I, the first commenter, were involved in either of the first two AfDs. Please don't imply that we are repeatedly abusing process to get our way. — WAvegetarian• (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment'. This article has twice been nominated for deletion, this nomination (3rd) was ONE DAY following the previous attempt which was 5 delete votes versus 9 keep votes which is BARELY a lack of consensus (some admins consider such a discussion result to be a consensus to keep). Your protestations and defenses notwithstanding, please refer to Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Renominations_and_recurring_candidates where it clearly states: A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion (if kept) or re-created (if deleted). With respect to the verifiability of this place, please see WP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. There are PLENTY of online sources including respected atlases that list this town as a real place. It is not our job to get at the truth of whether or not Mapquest or other online atlases have it right, as clearly stated: "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. Attempts to deconstruct these online atlases are beyond the scope of purpose here. This location is verifiable under the terms of the policy established at WP:V. The IMMEDIATE renomination of this article to AfD after a previous attempt to delete it had failed is a violation of policy. While I am certainly prepared to AGF, I find it a little hard to believe that Shadow1 had absolutely no idea that this article had been closed and failed to be deleted THE PREVIOUS DAY to his nomination. -- Nicodemus75 19:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment It's likely that all these sites are working from a common source - which might be wrong. Still, as I said above the balance of probablility is that the place does exist. Certainly, one shouldn't delete because of a possible database error. There is also the notability question - but wiki has a strong tradition that settlements are intriniscally notable and NGA lists it as a populated place. Again NGA might be wrong but one shouldn't delete because of a possible database error. Dlyons493 Talk 02:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: It's not "obviously a real place". It's a place for the existence of which we have no non-Internet evidence. What's needed is a real reference, something printed on a dead tree, in a nice binding, not a website. And a citation for the population of > 6000 (the actual reason it would be notable) is also quite starkly missing. - Nunh-huh 04:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm sorry that people are offended by the GNAA's misuse of this placename, but Fallingrain's mention is a sufficiently reliable source for me; I've often used Falling Rain Genomic's webpage to research & confirm information about Ethiopian villages & cities, & I believe that we can trust it as a reliable source. If we are to start deleting placenames in Africa because they are "non-notable", shall we also be fair & start deleting placenames in the US & Europe for the same reason? If you haven't figured it out, the trolls want us to delete this article for their amusement. (Note: in writing that last sentence, I am not calling anyone who argues for a delete here a troll, just saying that they are mistaken about this placename's misuse.) -- llywrch 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Nicodemus75. --Slgr @ndson ( page - messages - contribs) 03:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If llywrch says that Fallinggrain is a reliable site, then it's good. Precedent on Wikipedia clearly indicates that inhabited localities get an article. If a town with 6559 inhabitants (according to the external link) isn't notable, then Rambot needs to remove thousands of locations in the US. - 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments:

  1. "GNAA DOMINATES TROLLYMPICS" ... dateline: "Gnaa, Nigeria".
  2. Google shows no Nigerian' web pages containing the word "gnaa".
  3. Put the coordinates into Google Earth and you end up in the middle of nowhere. Contrary to another editor's comment -- nothing, just fields and forests. No road, no 6500 people.
  4. Put the coordinates on my trusty Nigerian road map and there's not even a dirt road shown. If 6,500 people live there, how does the Guiness truck get in? The map's index lists 1500 towns; Gnaa's not one of them.
  5. Article's creator was Dementedd, see his Article talk page and edit history -- this is not the only GNAA he edits.
  6. The article's first version was a redirect to the Gay Nigger Association of America
  7. Online map of the towns and roads around Awe and Kaor (Kaor is 2 km from the reported location of Gnaa). No Gnaa nowhere.
  8. Comment made by Spacepotato in the last AfD: "The population figure of 6,559 for Gnaa that this article used to have was taken from fallingrain, but this is probably bogus as fallingrain lists the same population figure for Kaor, Nigeria. Gnaa is either an error in the NGA database (which also contains the apparently nonexistent populated place Polfbroekstraat), or a place too small to show up on multimap."
  9. NGA's database contains all features, not just towns; check out the list of place files by country:
  • 8,229 places that are undersea features
  • NGA has 43,342 such "places" in Nigeria, a Texas-sized country -- Do we want 43,342 place articles just for Nigeria? 43,342 articles for Texas? (no Texas jokes, please) note: URL links to NGA's 1.2 Mb zip file
  • 31 places fall within just 10 km (6 miles) of Gnaa's reported location.
  • 8 different places within Vatican City
-- A. B. 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
(Responding to A.B.'s research)
  1. A shocking number of African towns (or large villages, if you will) lack road connections. Or what we outside Africa would call a road.
  2. Maps of African countries are often incorrect. (As an example, one I am using at the moment not only omits a number of villages or towns that the Central Statistical Agency (Ethiopia) mentions, but amazingly divides the Omo River into 2 different rivers.)
  3. Having worked with the NGA database for Ethiopia, I'll freely concede that it has some interesting problems. However, no one has looked in the Nigeria database to determine what the story might be. The NGA records not only list placenames & their longitude & latitudes, but also flag it with such information as the type of place it is (e.g. habitation, locality, building, waterhole) & if it is known by another name. "Gnaa" may simply be an explorer's error for some other placename. (Note: My excuse for not performing this investigation myself because I've been spending the weekend doing some house remodelling in 100-degree heat.)
  4. While an alleged troll created the article, even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn.
I have no horse in this race; with the right kind of arguments, I would be quite willing to change my vote above. My goal is to put only reliable information in Wikipedia. However, in all three deletion nominations, the same arguments & evidence have been repeated. If you want me to persuade me to change my vote, I need to see the following kinds of proof:
  • Has anyone checked the Nigerian government records? Almost every country has a website: even poverty-stricken Ethiopia has an abstract of its statistical information online. I would imagine that the Nigerian census agency has a website, & the necessary information to provide a decisive answer might lie there.
  • Has anyone taken the time to research this matter in a reference library? One of those with lots of printed things called books & periodicals? Excuse my tone, but this reliance on the Internet for facts about Africa is about as useful as relying on the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica for facts about astronomy or physics. My local city library even has a reference line, so you could call & get your answer without even leaving home. (And note: travellers have written books in English about Nigeria for over a century, some of which have been published in Nigeria. I'm curious to know whether any such works that should mention Gnaa do so.)
  • And let me repeat, how about a closer look at the NGA entry. For all we know, the answer may lie in that source. -- llywrch 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
"Populated Place Classification. A graduated numerical scale denoting the relative importance of a populated place. The scale ranges from 1, relatively high, to 5, relatively low. The scale could also include NULL (no value) as a value for populated places with unknown or undetermined classification."
Be sure to take a look, too, at the more detailed data analysis on the [Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gnaa, Nigeria (3rd nomination)|AfD's talk page]. -- A. B. 05:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per A.B's stunning detective work. This seems to be unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 06:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of verifiability. -- Rob 06:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Why are we going around in circles here? While I respect the research that A.B. has done here, it is far too original researchy for my taste. Fallingrain is a reliable source, and unless they personally come forward and say this information is false, I see no reason why this should be deleted. If we axe this, we may as well begin killing off the thousands of RamBot generated articles. A slippery slope we should not go down. P.S.: Has anyone tried contacting Fallingrain regarding this issue? Silensor 07:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The material I provided is not original research, it's encyclopedic. Not every Wikipedian is busy with AfDs, RfAs, ANIs and such; Wikipedia has actually been secretly built by hundreds of other editors beavering away looking this stuff up. Or that's what I thought. Just click on the links I conveniently provided -- go for it, it won't hurt. With one exception, it's all available online and available to any Wikipedian. (Google Earth imagery requires a free software download). The NGA file for each country is downloadable at the link above. The road map is an exception but widely available; (see the talk page for details). If I go to those coordinates next month as threatened -- now that's original research. (But wait -- isn't contacting fallingrain.com as suggested original research also?).-- A. B. 11:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
By the way, while my comments above were in response to Silensor's good faith, reasonable concern, I really meant my sarcasm to be about the whole recurring Gnaa muddle -- the way GNAA has effortlessly managed to get us Wikipedians diligently tying ourselves in a knot with our own processes. My sarcasm was not meant to be about Silensor, but on re-reading, it looks like a dig at Silensor himself. I did not mean it that way. My aplogies. -- A. B. 15:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hoax. No reputable source. -- GWO
  • Delete. Per A.B. Wizzy… ☎ 08:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete, unverifiable hoax. I was fooled during the first AfD, I'm not going to be fooled this time. Also, A. B.'s excellent research is definitely convincing. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I can't see keeping data because of an inaccuracy in a source. One of my old computers had a world map program that came with it. It was very complete as far as locations it could pinpoint, but it also included a latitude and longitude for "Middle of Nowhere" in the Pacific Ocean. Does this mean I can now create an article on the inherently notable city of Middle of Nowhere, Pacific Ocean? GassyGuy 11:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: -- having fun yet? This is the third AfD. Think about it; if you were the other GNAA, wouldn't you enjoy seeing all us nerdy Wikipedians tying ourselves up fretting about all this? It's become a game. So lighten up -- we'll see this come around a few more times (in alternate guises should this third AfD pass). Like vandalism, it's just one another chronic, non-lethal pestulance afflicting Wikipedia. Like our response to vandalism, maybe we need a template; just encapsulate all the WP:NN links above into a new Gnaa template -- {{NoGnaaNowhere}} -- to save time the next time. In the meantime, let's delete this one. Cheers, -- A. B. 12:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Gay Nigger Association of America, obviously. — Jul. 22, '06 [14:41] < freak| talk>
  • Delete. No reputable sources. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Verifiability. Maybe they'll get bored one day... - Mark 15:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No reliable source.-- Aldux 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It is a bit disconcerting that we are so quick to discredit the reputation of this source (fallingrain) entirely. Can someone please explain why GlobeXplorer also provides photographs of one "Gnaa, NG" located at Latitude 8.3, Longitude 9.066599, with poster-size satellite imagery of the location available, dating back to January 1, 1999, half a decade before the Gay Nigger Association of America even existed? Quite a conspiracy we've got going here. Silensor 16:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that it's appropriate to look skeptically at a website that doesn't cite its sources. I don't see that fallingrain has cited its source for the existence of Gnaa. I think it's a bit disconcerting that no one can come up with a non-Internet reference for this supposedly-not-virtual place, or a citation documenting its purported population. - Nunh-huh 17:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: I would love to explain it for you. If you look at that site, you will see that they use Mapquest to generate "matching addresses." Mapquest is not always accurate. Neither is Google Maps which labels a house two blocks away with my address. As for the date, that is the satellite image date. It is not a picture of that town; it is a picture of the region that town is supposedly in. The poster-size imagery is of the region. You will note, if you use Google Earth, that the image is at very low zoom. You could also compare visible roads to the nona map and see that there are around a dozen "towns" supposedly in the original image that comes up. So that's the explanation. It is, just like image mundi, just a data overlay of someone else's location on someone else's image.— WAvegetarian• (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment why can't GNAA be listed for deletion? It's only notable because it's on SlashDot and WikiPedia, and Slashdotters and GNAA members vote to keep it. 132.205.95.44 21:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    18 AfDs to date -- that's pretty amazing.-- A. B. 21:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Also, don't try listing it for deletion - most of those AfDs were speedy keeps resulting from people being too impatient to wait before relisting it on AfD. The rest were because members of the GNAA flooded the AfDs with keep votes. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 23:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per A.B., and as for fallingrain, it's easily misinterpreted as noted above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have posted excerpts from this discussion on the article's talk page for future reference should this AfD fail, primarily regarding the specific references we used and their links. Although the full AfD discussion is archived, I've seen from these AfDs that, in reality, many people don't go back and wade through older discussions.-- A. B. 23:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I want to note that the only "failing" possible would be failing to reach consensus. AfDs resulting in anything else have achieved consensus which is never a failure as that is what our project is based on.— WAvegetarian• (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete per User:A. B.'s evidence. Geni 15:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep and please help reverse systemic bias this is a real place in nigeria Yuckfoo 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Deananoby2 17:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep regardless of how an internet organisation uses the name, the town in Nigeria is still inherently notable. The internet usage is simply an afterthought and trvia within the context of the article about the town. hoopydink Conas tá tú? 19:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Yes, I think there's pretty clear agreement that a town in Nigeria with a population of 6000 would be notable, if it existed, and that the troll club's use of the name is irrelevant to any article that might be written about that town. But the fact is that we cannot verify that the town does, indeed, exist. Since we can't verify it, the article ought to be deleted. If someone eventually finds some solid verification, another article could be written with actual, valid, facts. - Nunh-huh 22:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I figure this solidifies the notion that it does exist. hoopydink Conas tá tú? 22:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It's been established that that site isn't a reliable source. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Could you elaborate on how it was discounted as an unreliable source by a legitimate entity? hoopydink Conas tá tú? 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
All sources contain errors. The fewer the number of sources something can be found in, the more likely it represents an error. A town of 6000 persons ought to be findable in more than one source. - Nunh-huh 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Do you have any reasons to think that the Falling Rain Genomics site is in error? The GlobeXplorer site backs up the information given by the Falling Rain site. Speaking in generalities doesn't add much to the discussion (All sources contain errors). Also, it doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to understand that a small Nigerian town hasn't been heavily documented of yet. hoopydink Conas tá tú? 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
As detailed above, the two sites are not independent. And, yes, you are right, the town's existence hasn't been documented yet. - Nunh-huh 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The notion that it's reasonable to understand why the town hasn't been heavily documented is what I was right about, not that it hasn't been documented. You're a bit off in interpreting my previous statement. hoopydink Conas tá tú? 13:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Fallingrain.com is being misinterpreted; see the talk page: "With just 43 people in Gnaa, who gets to be mayor?" for the calculations.-- A. B. 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Questionable accuracy. If it passes AfD, I'll strip mention of GNAA (the group) from the article anyway. -- Improv 20:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • strong speedy delete enough said MikeMorley 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I just added some data to the talk page regarding NGA's place names and fallingrain.com's data that may shed some light on the question of how to use this stuff:

-- A. B. 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Once again, excellent job on the research. It definitely seems to clear things up and show that Fallingrain.com is indeed not a reliable source. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 06:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
How does that show how Fallingrain.com isn't a reliable source? The issue A.B. is bringing up is that Fallingrain.com is not specifically labeling Gnaa a town, but perhaps a region, territory, or other "place".
  • Weak keep per Hoopydink. 1ne 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: informal tally to date for the closing admin: 23 editors recommend deleting (70%), 9 keeping (27%), 1 merging (3%). There's been so much back and forth my count may be off by one or two. It will certainly change some more.-- A. B. 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Box? Where is this "box" you speak of? - Nunh-huh 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Nicodemus is right about the etiquette when I read it. Technically, my comment isn't in a box but it sure is a tally, so I struck it through. I think a reason for the rule is that unlike RfAs, this is not a vote -- we're just giving recommendations to the one admin who will actually make the real decision. Also, I'm not sure "etiquette" is binding but, heck, if we start ignoring etiquette, Miss Manners will tell you we're on a steep slippery slope from "please" and "thank you" to mobs with pitchforks ... -- A. B. 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep. delete western supremacists. JayW 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

See also

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Mango juice talk 01:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Yuppicide

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 23:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom (fails WP:MUSIC). -- Alan Au 00:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - Four albums with Wreckage Records [31], but I can find little about that label. Best I could find was this [32], which lists some seemingly non-notable bands. Here's a picture possibly showing the band in Germany [33]. No other significant info on Yuppicide found, but I would be willing to change to a keep if some verifiable evidence of touring could be supplied. -- Joelmills 04:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 15:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Renetto

Non-notable Internet persona. Nufy8 23:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - not notable -- Whpq 23:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - An important figure on YouTube that has a great fan base, there's no difference between a Wiki for any celebrity vs. Renetto. --(Unsigned comment by 24.151.80.215 ( talk · contribs))
Comment: User's third edit. The other two were to the article in question. Nufy8 20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - Not of note outside of Youtube. At least not yet. Dave 23:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hope Capital

Contested prod. Blatent advertisement for a 14 month old investment firm that shows no indications of having any independent sources for verifiability (A Google search on the firm name turns up the firm's home page and a plethora of fund raising drives for religious groups). Nothing in the text of the article to indicate the firm meets WP:CORP. In addition, the article was also created by a user with the same name as the business firm's founder so WP:VANITY may also apply. Jester 23:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | reply

As the founder and managing director of the company I'm in the best position to comment about its operations, mission etc.
 :: contact ::
23:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement. Probably copyvio as well. -- Alan Au 00:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 02:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, advert. Jacek Kendysz 01:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion as nn-bio. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Dr. Thomas Robinson

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Is being "a major voice for the reform of the ultra-conservative church of christ" notable enough for inclusion? Medtopic 23:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete unless notability (per claim) can be verified. Otherwise, nn-bio. -- Alan Au 00:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as nn bio. "...established himself as the major voice..." sounds like vanity to me. Ifnord 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of supermodels

Completing an unfinished AfD nomination. The AfD template was added not long after I suggested this very thing on the Supermodel talk page. This list has absolutely no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion of any particular model. In fact, the supermodel article provides little clarity or objectivity as to who or who is not a supermodel (as discussed on its talk page and elsewhere). For those reasons I have no problem completing this nomination and suggesting that it be deleted. Agent 86 23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. listcruft. Mystache 00:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is why categories exist. Medtopic 00:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Categories are worse than lists where the problem is the verifiability or objectivity of the label. At least with a list, you can explain inclusion or cite sources; if a list can't even be fixed by that, a category absolutely should not be created. Postdlf 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. per nom Doc 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Supermodel is an overused hypester term. Piccadilly 17:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I wavered on this for awhile, but I think it's enough to have an article on the term that can discuss its cultural meaning and application. A list designating who is a supermodel is inevitably POV. When that list is qualified as designating those who "have been described" as supermodels, it just becomes a trivial record of media hype. Postdlf 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Postdlf; no chance that such a list would ever be NPOV. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Conditional Delete If no more clearer definition of what qualifies as supermodel emerges at Supermodel which could be applied to this list than delete. If it does, than Categorize Bwithh 07:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete I actually find this page to be useful. The names on the list are who many people, especially those in the industry consider supermodels. For example, the likes of Twiggy, Linda Evangelista, Gisele Bundchen, Gemma Ward, Daria Werbowy, etc.. This page is very useful. Lil Flip246 15:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Could you explain why this list is useful, and how it has been determined that "many people, especially those in the industry" consider those listed to be "supermodels"? Postdlf 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • This list is useful because it shows who the term supermodel was used for. These models have the qualities as those mentioned in the supermodel article. If we don't have this list, people will just name random models supermodels. For example, Rachel Hunter who is NOT a supermodel. Lil Flip246 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Using your example, why not? She's internationally famous, probably has a higher-than-average income, has modelled for Sports Illustrated, Cover Girl, Estee Lauder, Revlon, etc., and has parlayed her modelling into other opportunities in the entertainment industry. As the term "supermodel" is largely made-up, it just shows the problems of trying to have a fixed set of criteria and the inherent subjectivity of the article. Agent 86 17:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • You answered neither of my questions. Why is it useful to show for whom the term "supermodel" has been used? And how have you determined (by what research) that those included in the list have the qualities (which qualities, exactly?) mentioned in the supermodel article, and those not included in the list do not have those qualities? Postdlf 23:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The term "supermodel" is a bit too fuzzy for my taste, and even if it wasn't, this would be better served by catergories anyhow. RFerreira 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete. Those in the list fit the description described in the supermodel page. If we don't include this list, we will have everyone using the term loosely on those who Are Not Supermodels like Rachel Hunter and Caprice Bourret. Lil Flip246 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Lil Flip, please only "vote" once. You've already been corrected once in this regard. If you have further comments to make, please be clear that it is a comment and not a new "vote" (and please be aware this is not a vote, but a discussion regarding consensus: please read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion). As an aside, there is no other way to use the term but loosely, because there is no set definitive criteria for being a supermodel. It's entirely subjective. Agent 86 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The definition and standards of a supermodel are explained in the supermodel page. If we don't have a list of real supermodels, people will continue to use the term loosely on any models like Pamela Anderson. Lil Flip246 18:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Please don't conitnue to just repeat the same things over and over agein to try and have the last word and yet fail to answer direct questions. This is little short of being a troll. Doc 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 14:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Tatum Reed

Article seems to be an ad masquerading as something else. Also not sure of the notability of the entry. Mystache 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Notability not established. -- Alan Au 00:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Looks like spamvertisement to me. Buck ets ofg✐ 00:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete From what I can tell, she doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or the proposed WP:PORN BIO, and her website doesn't meet WP:WEB. Yank sox 14:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can't see why there are any objections to TR's article. She's more about the image than the business and will soon be even more so. All the facts seem meaningful and the info is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.242.54 ( talk • contribs)
  • Do a Google search on Tatum Reed and compare it to the average porn star, she is already notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.24.145 ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion. Merge not deemed necessary. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Global warming consensus

There doesn't seem to be a point to this article &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: There's also nothing that links to it. I think it's a temporary thing, but I can't claim to understand it myself. Friday (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to Global warming. Looks like an attempted POV fork. I doubt there is anything here worth merging which isn't already in the main article.-- Xyzzyplugh 00:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Xyzzyplugh, or if there's anything salvageable (which I doubt), then merge and redirect. -- Alan Au 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect per Xyzzyplugh (merging if appropriate, per Alan) Buck ets ofg✐ 00:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Xyzzyplugh, I don't see anything worth merging. 168.122.228.33 05:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. I don't think a redirect is even necessary. -- H·G ( words/ works) 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without redirect - nothing links to it, and it's an unlikely name to type in. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and do not redirect. Orphaned, pointless article. Unlikely search term. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Deletee — Dunc| ☺ 12:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete WP doesn't determine consensus and any article with that word in the title is by definition unencyclopaedic. Other than that.... overwhelming consensus? hmmmm -- Kalsermar 17:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. per nom. FeloniousMonk 01:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to keep, and redirect as requested. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Dr. Jaishankar Menon

No vote. Not sure about this one. Is being an IBM Fellow notable enough for inclusion? Redirect to Jaishankar Menon if it is a keeper. Medtopic 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Probably deleteKeep. -- Bigtop ( tk| cb| em| ea) 17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. Only potentially notable achievement is awarding of IBM Fellow, suggesting that this entry be merged there if the award itself is notable. Otherwise, delete. -- Alan Au 00:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. Achievements are mentioned, but IMO they are not notable enough. If someone can highlight their importance, I am willing to reconsider my opinion. — Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 10:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep-This article has grown out of stub stage. It lists his various awards, his IBM Fellowship, his important contributions in developing RAID, and his alumnus awards. This has got to be a keeper! Article has also been updated since votes were tallied, take a look at new version and reconsider. Reppin the bay 02:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep-I think being one of only 65 active IBM Fellows is enough by itself to call for the keeping of this article...I guess, yeah, being an IBM Fellow IMO, IS notable enough for inclusion 49ers14 14:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. IBM fellow or not, the list of awards and accomplishments make this a keeper. RFerreira 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable and accomplished. Aye-Aye 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_21&oldid=1081095802"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE