- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:The Epopt; list at DRV if this is a problem. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 09:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
JT Woodruff
already speedy deleted twice, extremely short nn-musician-- xaosflux Talk/ CVU 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This musician is apparently notable and the speedy deleters seemed to be a little quick on the trigger finger. Please check out
Hawthorne Heights and
this Google search. In the future, I suggest administrators do a little research when a claim of notability is made in the article, even if it is a stub.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
03:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A notable band does not a notable musician make, hence why there's so little to say in this article. For the most part, especially for newer bands, anything that needs to be said about them can be said on their band's page. --
InShaneee 03:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't see the logic in this. There are many musicians who are notable simply because they are in a band. In fact, that is one of the best ways to become famous: start a famous band.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
03:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is very true. However, I don't think this guy is one of those people. I've heard of Guns 'N Roses, and I've heard of Slash and Axel Rose. I've heard of Hawthorne Hights, but I couldn't name a single member, and I think as of now (aside from the band's hardcore following), that's pretty typical (for reasons enunciated by the voter below, most likely). -- InShaneee 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't see the logic in this. There are many musicians who are notable simply because they are in a band. In fact, that is one of the best ways to become famous: start a famous band.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
- Delete not because the musician isn't notable, but becuase he hasn't had a career independent of Hawthorne Heights, and I therefor find it doubtful there's anything to put here that isn't already in that article. -- djrobgordon 04:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Hawthorne Heights unless he does something of note outside the band. His credits on Allmusic.com shows that he hasn't done much outside the band [8] and the current article is a substub. However, he is a person who is likely to have people search for information on so we should have him as a redirect. Capitalistroadster 04:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JHMM13. Subject notable, article needs work. So fix it. Monicasdude 04:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
2006 Town Meeting Season in Merrimack, New Hampshire
This article can never become anything more than a stub on a non-notable town meeting. Non-notable in its own right. Ral315 ( talk) 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Ral315 ( talk) 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Ral has a vendetta against me, so he takes it out on articles I have to do with. This is an annual town election, just like any other, the winners of it will become notable, why not the election they're involved with.
Karm
a
fist 04:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- No vendetta here. But it's a non-notable article. I could write a similar article about thousands of cities across the world, and I feel that the subject is non-notable, and can't be expanded beyond a basic voter's guide (and, after the election, a news article reporting the results). I find your assumption of bad faith here disturbing. Ral315 ( talk) 05:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- What I find disturbing is that you don't write a similiar article about the thousands of elections occuring like this across the world instead of just blithely slapping a tag on it despite the fact that you likely don't care either way.
Karm
a
fist 05:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, I do care. I would have nominated this whether it was you, or an IP. I would not write such articles, because I know they don't fit notability. My city of 75,000 people, and the neighboring city of 200,000 people, don't even have articles on their respective mayors- not because they couldn't be written, but because they're not automatically encyclopedic.
Ral315 (
talk) 06:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's where we disagree. Anyone elected to any public position is notable, as well as elections that elect them. I've put a transwiki to Wikibooks already, just as a backup in case this afd continues the way it's going.
Karm
a
fist 06:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Dogcatcher is an elected office in some localities [11] -- should we also include those elections? Ewlyahoocom 14:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's where we disagree. Anyone elected to any public position is notable, as well as elections that elect them. I've put a transwiki to Wikibooks already, just as a backup in case this afd continues the way it's going.
Karm
a
fist 06:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, I do care. I would have nominated this whether it was you, or an IP. I would not write such articles, because I know they don't fit notability. My city of 75,000 people, and the neighboring city of 200,000 people, don't even have articles on their respective mayors- not because they couldn't be written, but because they're not automatically encyclopedic.
Ral315 (
talk) 06:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as non-notable Merrimackcruft. Would be appropriate for Wikimerrimack if there were one; Karmafist should make that part of the platform!
But good luck in the election!(Stricken in light of recent comments.) Schizombie 05:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete Smalltownelectioncruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. CrypticBacon 05:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The winner of the elections will not automatically become notable. The method of city government is worth a mention on the town's article. Discussion of the elections for a particular year is probably of interest to residents but not many others.
Capitalistroadster 05:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment from WP:BIO
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a community noticeboard. -- Carnildo 06:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Local politics, not encyclopædic in scope & an expectation of notability for candidates is not the same as notability itself. (aeropagitica) 07:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Question. I dont know much about american politics. Would the winner of the election be equivalent to a British MP, or more like a Councillor Jcuk 11:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unencyclopedic. Hello, we are an encyclopedia, not some notice board. -- Ter e nc e Ong 11:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy as legitimate background information of a Wikipedia user. Unless the town gets significant media attention (as the school board did a while back IIRC), it is not notable. NoSeptember talk 13:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete who cares! Guys running shouldnt create stuff even if its not an ad for them. Defunkier 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence of notability outside the locality of Merrimack, New Hampshire.-- Isotope23 15:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I was elected a student council representative in 6th grade, where's my article? But this isn't even an article, it's an indiscriminate collection of junk that's being defended. Grandmasterka 17:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy per NoSeptember. youngamerican ( talk) 17:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We keep this up and eventually we're going to have to keep track of articles on Congressional and Parliamentary elections and...oh, wait. We already do. My bad.-- み使い Mitsukai 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete completely unimportant as written. Perhaps a rewrite and rename could create a meaningful article on something to the effect of government affairs in Merrimack for 2006, but even that's dubious . Cool3 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete local politics, local political meetings, local political clubs, local schools, local churches, are not inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn per nom. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, do not userfy. What's next? The minutes of my mother's TOPS meeting this morning? User:Zoe| (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: individual sittings of a town meeting are not inherently notable. Jonathunder 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —
Scm83x
talk
11:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete, per nom. Badgerpatrol 14:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- De-freakin'-lete. C'mon Kf, you've gotta have better things to do with your time here on WP than this or, maybe not. hydnjo talk 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Alpha269 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 03:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
SourceryForge
I brought this up at WP:DRV. It was previously closed as a "no consensus", but it seems to fall far short of WP:WEB guidelines. No sources, alexa rank over 1 million, nothing to indicate significance. The original closer said he has no objection to calling this a "delete" or relisting. I figured I'd relist it just to make sure everything's fair and visible. Most people said "delete" in the last Afd. The reasons given for keeping were "pending further disscussion" and "fun name". A few months have gone by, so there's been time to discuss or improve the article, but it hasn't changed. Unless there's something extraordinary about this website to make us disregard WP:V and WP:WEB, I'd say it has to go. Friday (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Good article on this unique wiki. It may not be "extraodinary", but as far as I'm concerned that is not a requirement for wikipedia. As per my previous vote, I say it should stay. -- JJay 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- We don't need to document the internet as it happens. The net itself does this, and Wikipedia is not google. Is there something particular about this website that makes you feel it should have an encyclopedia article, or is it just that it exists? Friday (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It sometimes provides information on topics of interest in one place. Google is a search engine. It sometimes helps people find web pages that exist on the internet. Many topics covered here are covered elsewhere on the internet in much greater depth. Nevertheless, in my opinion, that is not a reason or even a valid argument for deciding what articles are included here. Things are happening all the time. That may be reflected by google, yahoo, jeeves, it certainly does not preclude encyclopedic coverage of a unique wiki by a collaborative community of editors. -- JJay 17:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- We only want extrodinary websites on wikipedia as stated in WP:WEB, it is a requirement.
Mike (
T
C)
18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC) - It is a guideline. -- JJay 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Very low Alexa ranking, and not very likely to be improved. While theoretically we could write something about everything,
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and at some point we have to draw the line. That line eventually evolved into the
WP:WEB guideline, and this article does not meet it.
Tito
xd(
?!? -
help us) 17:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly which part of
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does this violate? --
JJay 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- That we do not need to have a page about every single website out there, and where to stop has been determined through discussion and consensus in the establishment of each notability guideline.
Tito
xd(
?!? -
help us) 18:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- None of which is listed on the policy page you cited. -- JJay 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- That we do not need to have a page about every single website out there, and where to stop has been determined through discussion and consensus in the establishment of each notability guideline.
Tito
xd(
?!? -
help us) 18:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly which part of
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does this violate? --
JJay 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
Mike (
T
C)
18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The page is not notable just because it's a wiki.
RasputinAXP
c
21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete, if there's anything that makes this notable, it isn't mentioned. Tuf-Kat 21:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB and low Alexa ranking. Metta Bubble 02:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Blog-On
Depending on your outlook, a nn website that fail
WP:WEB or a nn corp that fails
WP:CORP. Well-crafted spamvertising, though. Delete.
RasputinAXP
c
16:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Spam. This user also attempted to add Blog-On to Blog#See also, so seemingly has intent of promoting the website. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete advert.-- Isotope23 18:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable website -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advertising non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Moe (Calvin and Hobbes character)
Another Calvin and Hobbes stub! Moe is certainly not a notable figure; and besides, there's already information about him in the "Calvin and Hobbes" article.--
FelineFanatic13
talk
- Oooch, that signature! fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as nn character, and information is available at main article. -- Ter e nc e Ong 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom; there's no need for anything more expansive than what's already at the C&H article. Nifboy 15:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Smerge to Calvin and Hobbes (if there's anything to smerge) and turn this into a redirect. No need for Afd in cases like this. Friday (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Smerge " Thesocialistesq 19:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Smerge per above, with no objection to a redirect. PJM 19:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As noted by Oscar TheCat in the previous AfD for Susie Derkins, which was also caught up in this family of AfD's, it's an established trend to use satellite articles for secondary cartoon characters when the primary article is too long to plausibly support them. This is the done thing for The Simpsons, Futurama, The Flintstones, Charlie Brown and others, and it's working well enough here. There's no reason to saddle the main article further. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 19:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as is. There is an obvious and widespread precedent to keep articles for individual characters in comics/books/TV shows of similar notability. Moe is notable enough within the comic for his own article (this is pretty well written, too.) Grandmasterka 20:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is one of those articles that shows it is possible to write a nice-looking encyclopedic summary on a fictional character. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe the article, along with the other Calvin and Hobbes stubs, can be deleted and merged into
Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes instead of being kept.--
FelineFanatic13
talk
- Comment please, User:FelineFanatic13, no! We've already deleted things like Category:Terri Schiavo minor players do we need lists and categories of minor or secondary characters whose only notability is being somehow associated with something that is notable? Please, no! Carlossuarez46 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep to stop "minor players" creep. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- First choice keep, second, smerge into main article. To the best of my knowledge only eight characters are ever named in Calvin and Hobbes cartoons, so we're hardly going to get a flood of articles here (C, H, C's parents, Susie, Miss Wormwood, Moe and the babysitter whose name eludes me at the moment...) Grutness... wha? 00:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Rosalyn. I believe the Principal and the Doctor have names also. Keep by the way. Dsmdgold 02:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a pretty alright article I think, can be considered encyclopedic. :) -- Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, recurring character in major cartoon. Kappa
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Susie Derkins (character)
Yet another another unworthy Calvin and Hobbes stub!--
FelineFanatic13
talk
- Speedy keep The AfD that closed less than a month ago says otherwise. Consensus established this article as notable and inappropriate for deletion or merge. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Please double-check things before nominating articles for AfD. You originally nominated a nonexistent title in this AfD, which I've fixed, and the AfD from February was properly referenced on the article talk page. Thanks for working to keep Wikipedia tidy. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 19:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per A.L. Grandmasterka 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep to stop "minor players" creep. Carlossuarez46 22:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Ter e nc e Ong 11:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Per others. Metamagician3000 11:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per discussion from previous nomination. -- Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 19:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Miss Wormwood
Surprise, surprise! Yet another another unworthy Calvin and Hobbes stub!!!! This is getting so annoying!--
FelineFanatic13
talk
- Speedy keep -- sufficiently notable, cleanable, and the main article is too long to plausibly merge in any/all of its satellite articles . — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It certainly is annoying, isn't it? Several AfDs for notable characters in an undoubtedly notable comic strip? Grandmasterka 21:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Grandmasterka CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Meets criteria. -- Krashlandon (e) 22:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per my previous. Carlossuarez46 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep'n'clean Eivind 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Grandmasterka. -- Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 19:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Chuck Norris Facts
Keep.It's part of a pop culture phenomena. It may only be a fad, but Chuck Norris Facts have proven to be rather popular among college-age people. Besides, there's unlimited space in the Wikipedia universe; no reason to eliminate this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Chuck Norris Facts have been a continuing phenomina that deserves reference. I would say that by now, the phases have entered a sort of cultural lexicon, and thus, should be given credit where credit is due.
This is already covered in the Chuck Norris page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontimbo ( talk • contribs) 6 March 2006
Just ban the fools who making these Chuck Norris jokes. Common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.76.0.33 ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 March 2006
PLease keep!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.122.76 ( talk • contribs) 6 March 2006
Keep If u dont keep chuck norris may just give u a roundhouse kick to the face --ThaWalk--
Keep. Chuck Norris Facts are a big part of internet culture and deserve a seperate inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.188.39 ( talk • contribs) 4 March 2006
Delete, redirect to Chuck Norris. This so-called meme has grown entirely out of hand. Wikipedia is not a place for random memes- this article is not enclyopedic in the least. This should simply redirect to the Chuck Norris page, and leave all prominent iformation there. It is nothing more than a page full of vandalism and unfunny 'facts' as it is. Rimsy 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. - Samsara contrib talk 19:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Rimsy. - Spiffy42 19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Chuck Norris. Chairman S. Talk 20:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect. I originally thought about voting keep for this one, but after going to the subject's entry on the internet phenomenon page, there really isn't anything more to say about this article other than the single sentence. Redirect to internet phenomenon. Isopropyl 20:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. One roundhouse kick from Chuck Norris saved a vanispamcruftvertisement article from deletion. Isopropyl 20:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Trim and Merge. The countless examples can be deleted, because they just inspire more people to add their own examples. But some comment on the fad, and Chuck's response to it should be merged into the Chuck Norris page itself. Maelwys 21:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, but the phenomenon is real, so it should be mentioned on the Chuck Norris page. Maybe trim and merge would be appropriate, as suggested above. We definitely DON'T want Wikipedia to become a source for new "Chuck Norris facts" or a compendium of them. There's already too much trivia being archived on Wikipedia! This degrades its value as an encyclopedia, IMHO. Slowmover 21:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Feels like kicked out from Uncyclopedia and trying to find home here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the article clearly establishes notability and media coverage. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Chuck Norris and cleanup, removing the unencyclopædic 'facts'. Mention of the phenomenon and Norris' response will be enough to keep this on the level for WP. (aeropagitica) 23:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, make a mention of it on the Chuck Norris page, note that he's acknowledged them. That really dshould be enough. - Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Chuck Norris, regardless of how popular it might be at some schools or at some places, the random fact generator isn't exclusive towards Chuck Norris. Douglasr007 02:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopedic. -- Krash ( Talk) 02:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This absolutely must be kept. One of the best things about wikipedia is it's ability to have current social phenomenon in it's archives. The loss of this article would set a precedent that would in the end do nothing to benefit the stated goal of wikipedia. This does not degrade it's value at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.252.179 ( talk • contribs) 2006-03-02 19:05:08 (5th edit)
- Keep and Cleanup I think that this article is in need of some cleanup and some wikifying, but it should be kept. Why? Well, it's an internet phenomenon (i see it quite a bit). Wikipedia has articles about other internet phenomenons as well. In fact, that's one of the reasons i really like Wikipedia...you can find stuff here you wouldn't be able to find any where else. I mean, we have articles about Badger badger badger and The End of the World and Peanut Butter Jelly Time and even Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten. I think that as an internet phenomenon, this is as worthy of a place on wikipedia as those other articles! I do agree that it needs some clean up. -- Quadraxis 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If Chuck Norris wanted an article he would kick everyone at the Jordanhill railway station in the teeth and take the millionth article position. -- maclean25 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanupThe phemonenon is real (Even I, who normally would frown on such an activity, have submitted "facts." It's an internet meme and so needs to be kept. Or, delete but also delete Badger badger badger and Homestar Runner and All your base are belong to us and The Numa-Numa dance and so on and so forth. -- Thenobleageofsteam 8:44, 2 March 2006
- Keep. Notable Internet phenomenon, even though it is no "All your base are belong to us." Crypticfirefly 06:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn and annoying fad MLA 09:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - unverifiable, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 10:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The current version of the page is OK. Other memes are repertoried on the site, so why couldn't this one? Plus, it grew out beyond the internet, becoming a huge part of popular culture. Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.217.228.187 ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Keep it! This has become a huge thing, and isn't Wikipedia supposed to be moving foward, not backwards? Claudius8110
- Delete, redirect to Chuck NorrisIt's surprising how widespread this is, but should be added to the Chuck Norris page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.43.38.133 ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If there's a section on Vin Diesel facts, this thing should stay. Besides, if we delete it, people will start adding this stuff to the Chuck Norris page again. Samantha17 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Chuck Norris. I can't believe you want to delete it! In some countries (like Poland) they're extremely popular. In some maybe not, but that's not a reason for deletion. Also, keep at most 2 examples and mercilessly remove any additions by trolls. The roundhouse kick on the laws of physics is a good one. We could add "Chuck Norris has negative pings" (my favorite) for the geeks and keep it that way. Misza13 T C E 21:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This meme is a real, notable Internet phenomenon. SweetP112 21:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a notable enough internet fad to garner discussion, and merging it into Chuck Norris would open the possibility of cluttering up Norris' page with things that are just barely related to the man himself. -- Visual77 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it's a real internet phenomenon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaybenad ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: isn't this basically the same idea as an Elephant joke? If Elephant jokes get their own page, why not this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.63.100.162 ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, don't merge with Chuck Norris. -- Curps 01:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable internet memes, and this even reaches the absurdly strict standards of being mentioned in major media to boot, including Tony Danza's talk show and The Best Damn Sports Show Period. Poor nomination. -- badlydrawnjeff ( WP:MEME?) 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep How can you say it's made up in school one day if it circulated on the internet? -- Antoshi~! T | C 10:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup. As far as memes go, this one has made a fairly large splash. But the article is indeed a bit of a mess. It should be kept if someone is willing to go about the business of making it encyclopedic -- Yst 12:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as this is really a big thing outside of Wikipedia. Pepsidrinka 20:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I found the article useful. Someone was sending me these Chuck Norris facts one day, and I had no idea why until I found this article. That's one of the things I love about Wikipedia; you can find stuff in it that no one else will take the time to explain. -- Alexwagner 20:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Seems notable enough to me.
22:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC) - Merge and cleanup per aeropagirica Nick Catalano ( Talk) 23:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. Contrary to popular belief, it was Chuck Norris, not meteors or climate change, that killed the dinosaurs. -- DDerby- (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Edit down and merge. This page is a mess in its current form, and cannot be expanded on, really. It's also a page that looks like it could attract vandalism, but then again, if this was deleted, it would be some other page that does it. Whatever the case, whichever page it gets merged to should still have the link to the chucknorrisfacts.com. Crazyswordsman 03:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep While clearly a fad, the Chuck Norris Facts phenemonon is probably notable enough to merit a page. The article needs some cleanup, though. -- Viridian || (Talk) 08:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This is clearly it's own internet fad, although the article does need some work. -- Askaggs 15:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This article reflects a minor internet trend and although not perfect, it is valuable. It should be improved and possibly broadened to reflect other similar trends, but definitely not merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.18 ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 6 March 2006
- Keep. It's a notable Internet phenomenon that deserves its own article. Imaginaryoctopus (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable meme. This should be kept separate from Chuck Norris, though this discussion has no bearing on that particular decision. android 79 20:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If "all your base" gets a page, this is certainly worth a page. 67.188.192.110 21:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable Internet phenomenon. -- Maxamegalon2000 22:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Obviously, I'm discounting the views of the 'puppets. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 04:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Clock Spider
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
This is a non-notable meme that never found its way outside of a few forums. The definition of meme is something that is mimicked and passed along- something Cloxkspider has not been. Rimsy 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I've never seen a discussion about clocks or spiders that didn't include Clock Spider. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.-- み使い Mitsukai 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Funny, I saw a spider peering out from behind my wall clock the other day, not that big, though... -- O bli ( Talk) ? 20:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Hey, if LUEshi can survive 4 attempts at deletion, why should Clock Spider be taken down? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Patashu (
talk •
contribs)
- LUEshi is at least still popular on LUE. Clockspider didn't really have the staying power, from what I can see. WarpstarRider 01:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. While it may not be the most notable meme out there, I still like Clockspider. Still doesn't make it any more encyclopedic... - Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, unencyclopedic. -- Krash ( Talk) 05:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'd like to see this page up, because I study insects as a living, and having seen this, I must say that both my collegues and myself are very interested. -Sincerely, Bugman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.205.223 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep 12,000 google hits for "clock spider". I wouldn't consider fark, somethingawful, and 4chan "a few forums". This article also correctly identifies the spider as a huntsman spider, which is exactly the reason I came to wikipedia for more information about the thing. This is the purpose of an encyclopedia, folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.48.87 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep: Important and humourous meme taken up in large forums such as those described above, and also has its history amidst other phenomenons such as Limecat (which was a very successful meme).
- Keep, this meme found it's way into my conciousness and I never vist fark, somethingawful or 4chan. Kappa 03:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is an interesting, even if anecdotal entry. It is art in a sense, and deserves its mention. Regardless of whether it may or may not be a good example of a meme, it is definately unusual and noteworthy.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Bishop Robert A. Campbell
nn bio; Google gets me
one hit on the first page regarding someone who may or may not be his father. I'm sure he's a fine man and a man of God, but he's not notable.
RasputinAXP
c
20:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete local churches and their preachers (whatever their titles) are still nn. Carlossuarez46 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment still seems odd to me that a church which exists and is verifiable would be less notable than some dumb pokemon character. Jcuk 23:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I take bishops of reasonably sized denominations to be putatively notable, but there's no evidence of non-local relevance here. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am a local church preacher, and it strikes me that any clergy person with integrity would be embarrassed at even having such an article. If they aren't embarrassed, that just confirms their non-notable nature. Yes, it's odd, but then dumb pokemon characters don't willingly take on any moral codes. Delete.-- KJPurscell 04:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Polur
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete No google results found for such a phrase Wickethewok 21:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable and/or original research / dictdef / protoneologism . — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Garbage. -- Krashlandon (e) 22:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kusma (討論) 22:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Adrian. -- Alpha269 00:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator: Consider using the
proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. There has been too much meatpuppeteering here that I can in good faith count the votes from very new users. From the established users, we have a unanimous delete consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
John Bambenek (2nd Nomination)
- Second nomination. The prior nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Broken AfD nom by anon,
[36] that was incompletely de-listed by an admin. Re-listing. —
Adrian~enwiki (
talk) 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- References: :eWeek [37] PCWorld [38] InfoWorld [39] SearchSecurity [40] Consumer Affairs [41] C-Net [42] State of Oregon [43] his own college [44] Seatlle Times [45] LA Times [46] The NYTimes article [47]
- KEEP- He is an influential member of the blogging community. He did excellent work breaking key stories such as the CNN X story in late 2005, working on the image recovery that helped prove it to be a technical glitch. He also does articles that help other bloggers, hundreds at times, write stories. --
RealTeen 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: User's first edit -- Ragib 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- It seems to me that Bambenek has been in the news, and is a member of the media.--
KenderTWA 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: User's first edit -- Ragib 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- He's a writer and highly respected IT professional that is very well-known in several technical and literary circles. There's no reason to delete him at all. There are far more articles that are much more deserving of deletion.
Kit Jarrell 02:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Slightly odd; this is this user's twenty-first edit; he's made four edits to articles, and has only made one other edit (last December) since 02:56, 27 August 2005 [48].-- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- Well known in technical/security circles ... definitely a keeper! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trejrco ( talk • contribs)
- Speedy Keep. First, this is a renomination from less than 3 months ago, nothing has changed except perhaps even more notable has been achieved by the subject being in the New York Times and other newspapers. Lexis-Nexis showed he's been quoted also in the LA Times and he shows up in dozens of articles. The opinions above that we should make exceptions to what normally constitute notablity notwithstanding, it's clear he is notable. The irony of citing that his blog is ranking at or near the top 100 of 23 some odd million blogs is thick. Second, this was created by an anon and is clearly a bad faith nomination as noted above by someone who was barely familiar enough with the process to even start it correctly. This article stood on its own two feet a few months ago, nothing has changed. -- 130.126.139.14 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is a vanity page. Why does he have his own page? What has he done? What is he famous for?
12.221.103.5 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- User's 19th edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This local [person] should not be mentioned at wikipedia. --
130.126.146.103 23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (personal attacks removed)
- User's only edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree, this guy is in my department... [personal attacks removed]... doesn't deserve to be on wikipedia. --
130.126.139.129 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- User's 4th edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. [personal attacks removed] --
130.126.146.169 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- User's only edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This guy is .... on campus. While that makes him unique, it is because most people [don't] believe his politics. He shouldn't be given the time of day. --
130.126.147.85 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (personal attacks removed)
- User's only edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep per previous AfD, possible attack nom (but WP:AGF), and 'cause anons don't generally get to nominate things for AfD. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 06:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with 12.221.103.5. I've previous argued against including John Bambenek on the List of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign people. I repeat the argument here.
- I don't think he's notable because:
- his publications do not qualify him because (according to his resume) for all but two of them, he was only a contributor. This hardly qualifies him as a notable academic (yet).
- his blog does not qualify him because it's not notable enough [49] (yet).
- and writing for the college newspaper does not qualify.
- There are also all the arguments made in the first AfD. Notably, John Bambenek himself has done much of the early editing on the page and the person that created the page is someone from Champaign, IL (maybe even Bambenek?).
- He has mentioned that he has been quoted in the New York Times as a security expert. Granted, but there isn't enough notability to qualify his inclusion.
- People have previously accused me of bias. See my counter. Superdosh 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Superdosh. Jbamb is a valuable editor but I don't see anything that makes him notable by Wikipedia standards. Even if the incredible undocumented claim that during the first year after his graduation from college in 2001 "he led several development teams and became the resident expert in information security and Sun Microsystems products" at Ernst & Young (now Capgemini, which employs over 61,000 people) is true, that doesn't make him notable. This is a personal vanity article and should be deleted. Whether the new users are sock puppets or not is irrelevant; the article cannot stand on its own feet. -- DS1953 talk 17:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. He is a columnist in a local college newspaper for which the editor-in-chief didn't even warrant an article until a recent scandal. His blog receives few comments, suggesting few readers. The first publication for which he is listed as a "contributor" [50] has roughly a hundred similar contributors. Of the first six other contributors from that list (William Ahern, Jared Allison, Dan Astoorian, Corey Badeaux, Carmen Banks, and Marion Bates), none have Wikipedia entries. eaolson 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete His most notable merits for inclusion are his work in information security. To put his accomplishments in perspective, an average PhD graduate in computer science may write dozens of papers for peer-reviewed conferences and journals over their lifetime and have hundreds of references to their work from other scholarly works (a measure of impact). John's publications do not appear to be peer-reviewed, do not appear to be scholarly in nature, and do not appear to have a high level of impact. So his accomplishments are less than that of the average PhD graduate and unless half the PhD graduates should have entries, I don't see why John should have one.
67.171.73.202 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note. The above was this users 7th contribution, all related to removing John Bambenek from articles and all at the same time this morning. Possible sock puppet. -- 12.203.38.138 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable, cant verify references.
Mike (
T
C)
01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Oh he's notable, he's notable on campus... He features prominently in the
Daily Illini's decision to run the Danish cartoons. He should... not rewarded with a wikipedia article. --
130.126.130.101 02:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [personal attacks removed]
- User's 3rd edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Yeah, in Ed Psy 430 a professor talked about
this column and how his illustration of a donkey was meant to convey that all black people are jackasses... --
130.126.147.166 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [personal attacks removed]
- User's only edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. and STOP ANONS FROM DELETING VOTES!!! Non-notable. Vanity page. I've had to re-add my vote here after an anon deleted a whole bunch of votes and discussion here. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy. In the interest of disclosure, it should be noted that I've removed several personal attacks from this page [51]. — Mar. 6, '06 [11:31] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
- Delete. per Superdosh and others. - Will Beback 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I am satified with the notability here. -- Alpha269 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This editor's account was about 10 hours old at the time of this edit. -- DS1953 talk 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- Comment: I'll not vote for or against this, but why do all these users crop up to vote keep (their first, or among 2/3 edits), whenever this is put on an afd? A m:checkuser seems to be needed to root out the hoard of socks. No, I'm not accusing anyone, but the three votes I marked are quite suspect (and the accounts created after the afd listing are invalid anyway). Thanks. --
Ragib 04:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: One could say the same about new/anon users creating AFD's in the first place. I encourage a checkuser just to end any suspicion on this matter that there is a vast John Bambenek sockpuppet conspiracy as I tire of the charge. --
Jbamb 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: No, John, I wasn't accusing you. The whole thing with anon users' doing fly-by tagging, afd listing is quite frustrating. This afd listing, in the first place, was inappropriately made by the anon. There is also the possiblity of
"straw man sockpuppets". So, whoever ends up closing this afd, needs to disregard the single-edit user's, voting either for or against the afd, as clearly most of these users are socks. Thanks. --
Ragib 04:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If you aren't accusing me then who exactly does these supposed socks belong to? This isn't the first time I've been accused of this crap, I'm not calling you out per se, I just want a sysop to do the math here and put the issue to bed so people stop accusing me of running this article. That's all. --
Jbamb 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:Again, I am *not* accusing you in any way. (replied in your talk page on that). The 3 users I marked are so clearly made up, that I somewhat think those votes are here for the opposite affect ... to make "Keep" votes look dubious. I don't have any reason to say you are running this article. The afd was inappropriately listed by an anon (from Champaign... surprise!!!), and many of the pro/against votes are motivated by personal agenda rather than the merit of the article/subject. Afd's should be taken objectively rather than personal issues. The afd listing itself shows a personal bias rather than a good faith nomination in part of the anon. -- Ragib 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If you aren't accusing me then who exactly does these supposed socks belong to? This isn't the first time I've been accused of this crap, I'm not calling you out per se, I just want a sysop to do the math here and put the issue to bed so people stop accusing me of running this article. That's all. --
Jbamb 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: No, John, I wasn't accusing you. The whole thing with anon users' doing fly-by tagging, afd listing is quite frustrating. This afd listing, in the first place, was inappropriately made by the anon. There is also the possiblity of
"straw man sockpuppets". So, whoever ends up closing this afd, needs to disregard the single-edit user's, voting either for or against the afd, as clearly most of these users are socks. Thanks. --
Ragib 04:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: One could say the same about new/anon users creating AFD's in the first place. I encourage a checkuser just to end any suspicion on this matter that there is a vast John Bambenek sockpuppet conspiracy as I tire of the charge. --
Jbamb 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment With regards to the New York Times article, here is another New York Times front page article on computer security (specifically wi-fi security) from March 5, 2006. They've quoted security experts from router-maker Belkin (Johnathan Bettino), tomshardware.com (Humphrey Cheung), ABI Research (Mike Wolf) and Symantec (David Cole). Not a single one of these people has a Wikipedia page (nor does anyone at all mentioned in the article). This is just to point out the fallacious argument that being in a front page article in the New York Times implies notability. -- Superdosh 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I know this is one of my first drafts, but I have used and edited on Wikipedia anonymously for quite a while. I actually didn't know registration had any benefits until recently. If you need to see some things I have done, I edited some parts of the entry on the ACLU, under the ACLU's Critics, and I did some editing on Scott Fuller, who is someone I talk to on a regular basis.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RealTeen (
talk •
contribs)
- Note: User's 5th edit (all 5 to this afd page). -- Ragib 18:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You are welcome to refute my argument. The reality is that John Bambenek is not a famous person (like Ludacris, Roger Ebert, etc) nor does he have the accomplishments of an olympic medalist (Bonnie Blair) to warrant being listed along with those famous people in the Champaign-Urbana Metro entry. He is not famous in Champaign-Urbana nor nationally. The fact that he has a couple fans running around adding his names to lists he isn't qualified for is pathetic. Again, I challenge you to refute my argument. What is his major contribution? What peer-reviewed conferences and journals contain this contribution? How does this contribution make him any more notable than the hundreds of other PhDs from UIUC with vastly superior vitaes full of peer-reviewed publications?
67.171.73.202 17:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Your argument needs no refutation because you are an anon attacker. However, plenty of people who aren't olympic medalists have bios. It's clear from your comments you have an axe to grind. The original anon poster was upset at a column he wrote last week, even Adrian recognized this is an attack afd. If he has enough visibility that whenever he writes a controversial column people try to delete his bio, it's clear he has more influence than people are giving him credit for. -- 130.126.147.87 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment To quote John from the discussion page- "It amuses me that this nomination was filed the very same week I was in a front page article in the New York Times. On second thought, maybe that does mean I have no credibility..." -- RealTeen 16:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It should be noted that John has linked directly to this page from his blog
[52] and that the vote may consequentially be biased by participation from his readership. If you look at timestamps, it appears most of the "keeps" come within a few hours after his blog post. Will everyone with a blog and a 10 person fan club get a wikipedia page?
67.171.73.202 19:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note. The above has been contributed by a user who has no contributions to wikipedia except to remove this article. Another anon participant with an attack afd. -- 130.126.147.87 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note Bambenek was also mentioned in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger today. [53]. -- 12.203.38.138 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Further Note He's been reference in eWeek [54], PcWorld [55], InfoWorld [56], SearchSecurity [57], Consumer Affairs [58], C-Net [59], and Answers.com lists him as a notable information security professional. He was referenced by the State of Oregon for his knowledge [60], and his own college points out his notability [61]. For his coverage on Hurricane Katrina, he was quoted in both the Seatlle Times [62], and the LA Times [63]. The NYTimes article was reproduced in dozens of papers around the world. Laslty, according to Lexis-Nexis, about a dozen of his articles were syndicated across the wire service. The threshold for notability seems much higher in this case then in many many others. -- 12.203.38.138 22:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do you realize that answers.com is a wikipedia mirror? Anyway, this AfD is so much full of anon's on both sides, I think it would be necessary to discard votes from anons, as well as accounts created after this AfD listing, or with less than 100 edits. -- Ragib 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Meta-comment. This discussion is growing increasingly heated. I would just like to gently remind everyone to assume good faith and to refrain from making personal attacks. Accusations of bias really don't help forward the discussion. eaolson 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Just wanted to point out that 130.126.x.x anons are all coming from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign campus. -- Ragib 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment about References I looked through the refs, and they are articles written by someone else who quotes this guy. Dosen't assert nobality.
Mike (
T
C)
04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: ISBN Request: This is a request that the ISBN numbers of any material claimed to have been published in book form be listed here so that authorship can be verified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.73.202 ( talk • contribs) .
ISBN Numbers- Oracle Security Step-by-Step (Pete Finnigan, ; ISBN: 0974372749; Paperback; 2004-04), Securing Windows 2000 Step by Step (Jeff Shawgo, ; ISBN: 0967299292; Paperback; 2001-07-01) were the only two I could find with an ISBN search. As reference, he isn't listed as editor but contributor for those books. You can view a couple of them at [64]. As reference, you can find copies of the books online to verify he is listed as a contributor for them here and here. -- 12.203.38.138 04:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is the most acrominous AfD I've seen in a long time. It includes sysops deleting user comments [65]. It demonstrates a complete lack of following the process. There is a crtieria for Second Nominations, this doesn't meet it. This was started by an anon unfamiliar with wikipedia because they didn't even add the AfD right, this never made the WP:PROD process, and no discussion or debate was attempted before dumping this 2nd nom in. After seeing this level of sockpuppetry, I decided to take a look in depth on this one. There seems to be two criteria of notability that is claimed here. First is as an information security professional, second is as a blogger/columnist.
- In general, this user has over [66] 277 unique Google mentions, almost a hundred more than the last time and more than most articles that do get to stay. He is mentioned in dozens of news articles which is amazingly dismissed out of hand. Since when does being in a front page article in the New York Times not mean anything? In many cases, that is ipso facto proof of notability and that ends the discussion. Why are the criteria being thrown out just to vote delete?
- In information security, his material that he has authored does certainly seem to meet the WP:BIO criteria of 5,000 or more readers. Some mention that he doesn't have much in peer review journals, but any research that is notable enough for the New York Times certainly bypasses that threshold. Not all research in journals makes it into the mainstream media, research that does, especially if it makes the New York Times and international papers, most certainly is notable by any definition of that word. If 5000 people is the criteria, why is a readership in the millions being discarded out of hand?
- In blogging, his comments have appeared in the LA Times and Seattle Times. Any blogger mentioned in the mainstream media is pretty much considered notable. In fact Wikipedia:Notability (websites) states that multiple non-trivial media mentions is enough to establish notability. That threshold has been more than crossed here. His blog is ranked #104 in the Truth Laid Bear system out of 51,578 blogs (top .2%) [67]. Technorati ranks him at 1008/29.9 Million [68] (top .003%). He is an apparent right-winger that has enough visibility that he was mentioned and criticized by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee [69]. His political opponents, the Democratic Party, see him as notable enough to respond to. His paper, an independent and self-financed corporation has a circulation of 20,000 [70]. He is a featured writer on Blogcritics and stoptheaclu.com which both have readerships above 50,000 a day. The 5000 person threshold is more than crossed here.
- It seems that some of the votes here are not considerations of the content but those who want to vote no for the sake of voting no. This process has been horribly abused in this case and will likely, instead of reach any consensus, land this in Deletion Review. The criteria for notability has been more than crossed by any objective standard. This AfD shouldn't even be considered because it is a sham 2nd nom, independent of that, the 1st AfD came to the right conclusion. The criteria and process exists to prevent circuses like this from taking place that shamefully include sysops deleting supporting comments. That process and the criteria should be followed. This article should stay. -- 130.126.139.14 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Moved to comments becausen not only is this a new user ("I've seen in a long time"!), but it's the second vote from this IP address. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 08:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Statistics of fake vs genuine contributions
Intended as an aid to the closing admin. This isn't a vote, so the simple numbers are not the point; nevertheless:
- Keep
- Definitely genuine: 0
- Fake or dubious: 7
- Delete
- Definitely genuine: 6
- Fake or dubious: 9
-- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oi vey! *Insert sound of trout hitting Mel's head* What 'cha think you're doing? And that was a really lame disclaimer, too. "Nevertheless" it is interesting to see very new contributors taking part in both sides of a debate.
brenneman
{T}
{L} 12:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"[V]ery new contributors"? Euphemism of the week? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- More like euphemism of the weak, although that's redunadant and repetitive. But if we assume this is more than one person and think of these as potential "converts" I'll wear the shame of using insipid language.
brenneman {T} {L} 03:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Boy is Mine (2x Platinum)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Providence Country Day School
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:The Epopt; list at DRV if this is a problem. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 09:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
JT Woodruff
already speedy deleted twice, extremely short nn-musician-- xaosflux Talk/ CVU 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This musician is apparently notable and the speedy deleters seemed to be a little quick on the trigger finger. Please check out
Hawthorne Heights and
this Google search. In the future, I suggest administrators do a little research when a claim of notability is made in the article, even if it is a stub.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
03:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A notable band does not a notable musician make, hence why there's so little to say in this article. For the most part, especially for newer bands, anything that needs to be said about them can be said on their band's page. --
InShaneee 03:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't see the logic in this. There are many musicians who are notable simply because they are in a band. In fact, that is one of the best ways to become famous: start a famous band.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
03:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is very true. However, I don't think this guy is one of those people. I've heard of Guns 'N Roses, and I've heard of Slash and Axel Rose. I've heard of Hawthorne Hights, but I couldn't name a single member, and I think as of now (aside from the band's hardcore following), that's pretty typical (for reasons enunciated by the voter below, most likely). -- InShaneee 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't see the logic in this. There are many musicians who are notable simply because they are in a band. In fact, that is one of the best ways to become famous: start a famous band.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
- Delete not because the musician isn't notable, but becuase he hasn't had a career independent of Hawthorne Heights, and I therefor find it doubtful there's anything to put here that isn't already in that article. -- djrobgordon 04:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Hawthorne Heights unless he does something of note outside the band. His credits on Allmusic.com shows that he hasn't done much outside the band [8] and the current article is a substub. However, he is a person who is likely to have people search for information on so we should have him as a redirect. Capitalistroadster 04:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JHMM13. Subject notable, article needs work. So fix it. Monicasdude 04:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
2006 Town Meeting Season in Merrimack, New Hampshire
This article can never become anything more than a stub on a non-notable town meeting. Non-notable in its own right. Ral315 ( talk) 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Ral315 ( talk) 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Ral has a vendetta against me, so he takes it out on articles I have to do with. This is an annual town election, just like any other, the winners of it will become notable, why not the election they're involved with.
Karm
a
fist 04:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- No vendetta here. But it's a non-notable article. I could write a similar article about thousands of cities across the world, and I feel that the subject is non-notable, and can't be expanded beyond a basic voter's guide (and, after the election, a news article reporting the results). I find your assumption of bad faith here disturbing. Ral315 ( talk) 05:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- What I find disturbing is that you don't write a similiar article about the thousands of elections occuring like this across the world instead of just blithely slapping a tag on it despite the fact that you likely don't care either way.
Karm
a
fist 05:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, I do care. I would have nominated this whether it was you, or an IP. I would not write such articles, because I know they don't fit notability. My city of 75,000 people, and the neighboring city of 200,000 people, don't even have articles on their respective mayors- not because they couldn't be written, but because they're not automatically encyclopedic.
Ral315 (
talk) 06:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's where we disagree. Anyone elected to any public position is notable, as well as elections that elect them. I've put a transwiki to Wikibooks already, just as a backup in case this afd continues the way it's going.
Karm
a
fist 06:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Dogcatcher is an elected office in some localities [11] -- should we also include those elections? Ewlyahoocom 14:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's where we disagree. Anyone elected to any public position is notable, as well as elections that elect them. I've put a transwiki to Wikibooks already, just as a backup in case this afd continues the way it's going.
Karm
a
fist 06:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, I do care. I would have nominated this whether it was you, or an IP. I would not write such articles, because I know they don't fit notability. My city of 75,000 people, and the neighboring city of 200,000 people, don't even have articles on their respective mayors- not because they couldn't be written, but because they're not automatically encyclopedic.
Ral315 (
talk) 06:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as non-notable Merrimackcruft. Would be appropriate for Wikimerrimack if there were one; Karmafist should make that part of the platform!
But good luck in the election!(Stricken in light of recent comments.) Schizombie 05:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete Smalltownelectioncruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. CrypticBacon 05:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The winner of the elections will not automatically become notable. The method of city government is worth a mention on the town's article. Discussion of the elections for a particular year is probably of interest to residents but not many others.
Capitalistroadster 05:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment from WP:BIO
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a community noticeboard. -- Carnildo 06:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Local politics, not encyclopædic in scope & an expectation of notability for candidates is not the same as notability itself. (aeropagitica) 07:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Question. I dont know much about american politics. Would the winner of the election be equivalent to a British MP, or more like a Councillor Jcuk 11:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unencyclopedic. Hello, we are an encyclopedia, not some notice board. -- Ter e nc e Ong 11:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy as legitimate background information of a Wikipedia user. Unless the town gets significant media attention (as the school board did a while back IIRC), it is not notable. NoSeptember talk 13:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete who cares! Guys running shouldnt create stuff even if its not an ad for them. Defunkier 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence of notability outside the locality of Merrimack, New Hampshire.-- Isotope23 15:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I was elected a student council representative in 6th grade, where's my article? But this isn't even an article, it's an indiscriminate collection of junk that's being defended. Grandmasterka 17:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy per NoSeptember. youngamerican ( talk) 17:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We keep this up and eventually we're going to have to keep track of articles on Congressional and Parliamentary elections and...oh, wait. We already do. My bad.-- み使い Mitsukai 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete completely unimportant as written. Perhaps a rewrite and rename could create a meaningful article on something to the effect of government affairs in Merrimack for 2006, but even that's dubious . Cool3 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete local politics, local political meetings, local political clubs, local schools, local churches, are not inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn per nom. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, do not userfy. What's next? The minutes of my mother's TOPS meeting this morning? User:Zoe| (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: individual sittings of a town meeting are not inherently notable. Jonathunder 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —
Scm83x
talk
11:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Badgerpatrol 14:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- De-freakin'-lete. C'mon Kf, you've gotta have better things to do with your time here on WP than this or, maybe not. hydnjo talk 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Alpha269 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 03:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
SourceryForge
I brought this up at WP:DRV. It was previously closed as a "no consensus", but it seems to fall far short of WP:WEB guidelines. No sources, alexa rank over 1 million, nothing to indicate significance. The original closer said he has no objection to calling this a "delete" or relisting. I figured I'd relist it just to make sure everything's fair and visible. Most people said "delete" in the last Afd. The reasons given for keeping were "pending further disscussion" and "fun name". A few months have gone by, so there's been time to discuss or improve the article, but it hasn't changed. Unless there's something extraordinary about this website to make us disregard WP:V and WP:WEB, I'd say it has to go. Friday (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Good article on this unique wiki. It may not be "extraodinary", but as far as I'm concerned that is not a requirement for wikipedia. As per my previous vote, I say it should stay. -- JJay 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- We don't need to document the internet as it happens. The net itself does this, and Wikipedia is not google. Is there something particular about this website that makes you feel it should have an encyclopedia article, or is it just that it exists? Friday (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It sometimes provides information on topics of interest in one place. Google is a search engine. It sometimes helps people find web pages that exist on the internet. Many topics covered here are covered elsewhere on the internet in much greater depth. Nevertheless, in my opinion, that is not a reason or even a valid argument for deciding what articles are included here. Things are happening all the time. That may be reflected by google, yahoo, jeeves, it certainly does not preclude encyclopedic coverage of a unique wiki by a collaborative community of editors. -- JJay 17:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- We only want extrodinary websites on wikipedia as stated in WP:WEB, it is a requirement.
Mike (
T
C)
18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- It is a guideline. -- JJay 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Very low Alexa ranking, and not very likely to be improved. While theoretically we could write something about everything,
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and at some point we have to draw the line. That line eventually evolved into the
WP:WEB guideline, and this article does not meet it.
Tito
xd(
?!? -
help us) 17:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly which part of
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does this violate? --
JJay 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- That we do not need to have a page about every single website out there, and where to stop has been determined through discussion and consensus in the establishment of each notability guideline.
Tito
xd(
?!? -
help us) 18:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- None of which is listed on the policy page you cited. -- JJay 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- That we do not need to have a page about every single website out there, and where to stop has been determined through discussion and consensus in the establishment of each notability guideline.
Tito
xd(
?!? -
help us) 18:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly which part of
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does this violate? --
JJay 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
Mike (
T
C)
18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The page is not notable just because it's a wiki.
RasputinAXP
c
21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, if there's anything that makes this notable, it isn't mentioned. Tuf-Kat 21:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB and low Alexa ranking. Metta Bubble 02:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Blog-On
Depending on your outlook, a nn website that fail
WP:WEB or a nn corp that fails
WP:CORP. Well-crafted spamvertising, though. Delete.
RasputinAXP
c
16:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Spam. This user also attempted to add Blog-On to Blog#See also, so seemingly has intent of promoting the website. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete advert.-- Isotope23 18:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable website -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advertising non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Moe (Calvin and Hobbes character)
Another Calvin and Hobbes stub! Moe is certainly not a notable figure; and besides, there's already information about him in the "Calvin and Hobbes" article.--
FelineFanatic13
talk
- Oooch, that signature! fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as nn character, and information is available at main article. -- Ter e nc e Ong 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom; there's no need for anything more expansive than what's already at the C&H article. Nifboy 15:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Smerge to Calvin and Hobbes (if there's anything to smerge) and turn this into a redirect. No need for Afd in cases like this. Friday (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Smerge " Thesocialistesq 19:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Smerge per above, with no objection to a redirect. PJM 19:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As noted by Oscar TheCat in the previous AfD for Susie Derkins, which was also caught up in this family of AfD's, it's an established trend to use satellite articles for secondary cartoon characters when the primary article is too long to plausibly support them. This is the done thing for The Simpsons, Futurama, The Flintstones, Charlie Brown and others, and it's working well enough here. There's no reason to saddle the main article further. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 19:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as is. There is an obvious and widespread precedent to keep articles for individual characters in comics/books/TV shows of similar notability. Moe is notable enough within the comic for his own article (this is pretty well written, too.) Grandmasterka 20:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is one of those articles that shows it is possible to write a nice-looking encyclopedic summary on a fictional character. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe the article, along with the other Calvin and Hobbes stubs, can be deleted and merged into
Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes instead of being kept.--
FelineFanatic13
talk
- Comment please, User:FelineFanatic13, no! We've already deleted things like Category:Terri Schiavo minor players do we need lists and categories of minor or secondary characters whose only notability is being somehow associated with something that is notable? Please, no! Carlossuarez46 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep to stop "minor players" creep. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- First choice keep, second, smerge into main article. To the best of my knowledge only eight characters are ever named in Calvin and Hobbes cartoons, so we're hardly going to get a flood of articles here (C, H, C's parents, Susie, Miss Wormwood, Moe and the babysitter whose name eludes me at the moment...) Grutness... wha? 00:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Rosalyn. I believe the Principal and the Doctor have names also. Keep by the way. Dsmdgold 02:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a pretty alright article I think, can be considered encyclopedic. :) -- Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, recurring character in major cartoon. Kappa
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Susie Derkins (character)
Yet another another unworthy Calvin and Hobbes stub!--
FelineFanatic13
talk
- Speedy keep The AfD that closed less than a month ago says otherwise. Consensus established this article as notable and inappropriate for deletion or merge. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Please double-check things before nominating articles for AfD. You originally nominated a nonexistent title in this AfD, which I've fixed, and the AfD from February was properly referenced on the article talk page. Thanks for working to keep Wikipedia tidy. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 19:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per A.L. Grandmasterka 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep to stop "minor players" creep. Carlossuarez46 22:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Ter e nc e Ong 11:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Per others. Metamagician3000 11:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per discussion from previous nomination. -- Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 19:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Miss Wormwood
Surprise, surprise! Yet another another unworthy Calvin and Hobbes stub!!!! This is getting so annoying!--
FelineFanatic13
talk
- Speedy keep -- sufficiently notable, cleanable, and the main article is too long to plausibly merge in any/all of its satellite articles . — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It certainly is annoying, isn't it? Several AfDs for notable characters in an undoubtedly notable comic strip? Grandmasterka 21:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Grandmasterka CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Meets criteria. -- Krashlandon (e) 22:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per my previous. Carlossuarez46 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep'n'clean Eivind 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Grandmasterka. -- Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 19:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Chuck Norris Facts
Keep.It's part of a pop culture phenomena. It may only be a fad, but Chuck Norris Facts have proven to be rather popular among college-age people. Besides, there's unlimited space in the Wikipedia universe; no reason to eliminate this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Chuck Norris Facts have been a continuing phenomina that deserves reference. I would say that by now, the phases have entered a sort of cultural lexicon, and thus, should be given credit where credit is due.
This is already covered in the Chuck Norris page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontimbo ( talk • contribs) 6 March 2006
Just ban the fools who making these Chuck Norris jokes. Common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.76.0.33 ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 March 2006
PLease keep!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.122.76 ( talk • contribs) 6 March 2006
Keep If u dont keep chuck norris may just give u a roundhouse kick to the face --ThaWalk--
Keep. Chuck Norris Facts are a big part of internet culture and deserve a seperate inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.188.39 ( talk • contribs) 4 March 2006
Delete, redirect to Chuck Norris. This so-called meme has grown entirely out of hand. Wikipedia is not a place for random memes- this article is not enclyopedic in the least. This should simply redirect to the Chuck Norris page, and leave all prominent iformation there. It is nothing more than a page full of vandalism and unfunny 'facts' as it is. Rimsy 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. - Samsara contrib talk 19:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Rimsy. - Spiffy42 19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Chuck Norris. Chairman S. Talk 20:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect. I originally thought about voting keep for this one, but after going to the subject's entry on the internet phenomenon page, there really isn't anything more to say about this article other than the single sentence. Redirect to internet phenomenon. Isopropyl 20:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. One roundhouse kick from Chuck Norris saved a vanispamcruftvertisement article from deletion. Isopropyl 20:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Trim and Merge. The countless examples can be deleted, because they just inspire more people to add their own examples. But some comment on the fad, and Chuck's response to it should be merged into the Chuck Norris page itself. Maelwys 21:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, but the phenomenon is real, so it should be mentioned on the Chuck Norris page. Maybe trim and merge would be appropriate, as suggested above. We definitely DON'T want Wikipedia to become a source for new "Chuck Norris facts" or a compendium of them. There's already too much trivia being archived on Wikipedia! This degrades its value as an encyclopedia, IMHO. Slowmover 21:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Feels like kicked out from Uncyclopedia and trying to find home here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the article clearly establishes notability and media coverage. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Chuck Norris and cleanup, removing the unencyclopædic 'facts'. Mention of the phenomenon and Norris' response will be enough to keep this on the level for WP. (aeropagitica) 23:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, make a mention of it on the Chuck Norris page, note that he's acknowledged them. That really dshould be enough. - Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Chuck Norris, regardless of how popular it might be at some schools or at some places, the random fact generator isn't exclusive towards Chuck Norris. Douglasr007 02:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopedic. -- Krash ( Talk) 02:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This absolutely must be kept. One of the best things about wikipedia is it's ability to have current social phenomenon in it's archives. The loss of this article would set a precedent that would in the end do nothing to benefit the stated goal of wikipedia. This does not degrade it's value at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.252.179 ( talk • contribs) 2006-03-02 19:05:08 (5th edit)
- Keep and Cleanup I think that this article is in need of some cleanup and some wikifying, but it should be kept. Why? Well, it's an internet phenomenon (i see it quite a bit). Wikipedia has articles about other internet phenomenons as well. In fact, that's one of the reasons i really like Wikipedia...you can find stuff here you wouldn't be able to find any where else. I mean, we have articles about Badger badger badger and The End of the World and Peanut Butter Jelly Time and even Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten. I think that as an internet phenomenon, this is as worthy of a place on wikipedia as those other articles! I do agree that it needs some clean up. -- Quadraxis 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If Chuck Norris wanted an article he would kick everyone at the Jordanhill railway station in the teeth and take the millionth article position. -- maclean25 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanupThe phemonenon is real (Even I, who normally would frown on such an activity, have submitted "facts." It's an internet meme and so needs to be kept. Or, delete but also delete Badger badger badger and Homestar Runner and All your base are belong to us and The Numa-Numa dance and so on and so forth. -- Thenobleageofsteam 8:44, 2 March 2006
- Keep. Notable Internet phenomenon, even though it is no "All your base are belong to us." Crypticfirefly 06:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn and annoying fad MLA 09:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - unverifiable, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 10:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The current version of the page is OK. Other memes are repertoried on the site, so why couldn't this one? Plus, it grew out beyond the internet, becoming a huge part of popular culture. Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.217.228.187 ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Keep it! This has become a huge thing, and isn't Wikipedia supposed to be moving foward, not backwards? Claudius8110
- Delete, redirect to Chuck NorrisIt's surprising how widespread this is, but should be added to the Chuck Norris page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.43.38.133 ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If there's a section on Vin Diesel facts, this thing should stay. Besides, if we delete it, people will start adding this stuff to the Chuck Norris page again. Samantha17 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Chuck Norris. I can't believe you want to delete it! In some countries (like Poland) they're extremely popular. In some maybe not, but that's not a reason for deletion. Also, keep at most 2 examples and mercilessly remove any additions by trolls. The roundhouse kick on the laws of physics is a good one. We could add "Chuck Norris has negative pings" (my favorite) for the geeks and keep it that way. Misza13 T C E 21:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This meme is a real, notable Internet phenomenon. SweetP112 21:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a notable enough internet fad to garner discussion, and merging it into Chuck Norris would open the possibility of cluttering up Norris' page with things that are just barely related to the man himself. -- Visual77 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it's a real internet phenomenon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaybenad ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: isn't this basically the same idea as an Elephant joke? If Elephant jokes get their own page, why not this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.63.100.162 ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, don't merge with Chuck Norris. -- Curps 01:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable internet memes, and this even reaches the absurdly strict standards of being mentioned in major media to boot, including Tony Danza's talk show and The Best Damn Sports Show Period. Poor nomination. -- badlydrawnjeff ( WP:MEME?) 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep How can you say it's made up in school one day if it circulated on the internet? -- Antoshi~! T | C 10:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup. As far as memes go, this one has made a fairly large splash. But the article is indeed a bit of a mess. It should be kept if someone is willing to go about the business of making it encyclopedic -- Yst 12:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as this is really a big thing outside of Wikipedia. Pepsidrinka 20:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I found the article useful. Someone was sending me these Chuck Norris facts one day, and I had no idea why until I found this article. That's one of the things I love about Wikipedia; you can find stuff in it that no one else will take the time to explain. -- Alexwagner 20:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Seems notable enough to me.
22:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and cleanup per aeropagirica Nick Catalano ( Talk) 23:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. Contrary to popular belief, it was Chuck Norris, not meteors or climate change, that killed the dinosaurs. -- DDerby- (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Edit down and merge. This page is a mess in its current form, and cannot be expanded on, really. It's also a page that looks like it could attract vandalism, but then again, if this was deleted, it would be some other page that does it. Whatever the case, whichever page it gets merged to should still have the link to the chucknorrisfacts.com. Crazyswordsman 03:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep While clearly a fad, the Chuck Norris Facts phenemonon is probably notable enough to merit a page. The article needs some cleanup, though. -- Viridian || (Talk) 08:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This is clearly it's own internet fad, although the article does need some work. -- Askaggs 15:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This article reflects a minor internet trend and although not perfect, it is valuable. It should be improved and possibly broadened to reflect other similar trends, but definitely not merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.18 ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 6 March 2006
- Keep. It's a notable Internet phenomenon that deserves its own article. Imaginaryoctopus (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable meme. This should be kept separate from Chuck Norris, though this discussion has no bearing on that particular decision. android 79 20:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If "all your base" gets a page, this is certainly worth a page. 67.188.192.110 21:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable Internet phenomenon. -- Maxamegalon2000 22:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Obviously, I'm discounting the views of the 'puppets. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 04:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Clock Spider
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
This is a non-notable meme that never found its way outside of a few forums. The definition of meme is something that is mimicked and passed along- something Cloxkspider has not been. Rimsy 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I've never seen a discussion about clocks or spiders that didn't include Clock Spider. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.-- み使い Mitsukai 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Funny, I saw a spider peering out from behind my wall clock the other day, not that big, though... -- O bli ( Talk) ? 20:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Hey, if LUEshi can survive 4 attempts at deletion, why should Clock Spider be taken down? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Patashu (
talk •
contribs)
- LUEshi is at least still popular on LUE. Clockspider didn't really have the staying power, from what I can see. WarpstarRider 01:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. While it may not be the most notable meme out there, I still like Clockspider. Still doesn't make it any more encyclopedic... - Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, unencyclopedic. -- Krash ( Talk) 05:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'd like to see this page up, because I study insects as a living, and having seen this, I must say that both my collegues and myself are very interested. -Sincerely, Bugman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.205.223 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep 12,000 google hits for "clock spider". I wouldn't consider fark, somethingawful, and 4chan "a few forums". This article also correctly identifies the spider as a huntsman spider, which is exactly the reason I came to wikipedia for more information about the thing. This is the purpose of an encyclopedia, folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.48.87 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep: Important and humourous meme taken up in large forums such as those described above, and also has its history amidst other phenomenons such as Limecat (which was a very successful meme).
- Keep, this meme found it's way into my conciousness and I never vist fark, somethingawful or 4chan. Kappa 03:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is an interesting, even if anecdotal entry. It is art in a sense, and deserves its mention. Regardless of whether it may or may not be a good example of a meme, it is definately unusual and noteworthy.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Bishop Robert A. Campbell
nn bio; Google gets me
one hit on the first page regarding someone who may or may not be his father. I'm sure he's a fine man and a man of God, but he's not notable.
RasputinAXP
c
20:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete local churches and their preachers (whatever their titles) are still nn. Carlossuarez46 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment still seems odd to me that a church which exists and is verifiable would be less notable than some dumb pokemon character. Jcuk 23:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I take bishops of reasonably sized denominations to be putatively notable, but there's no evidence of non-local relevance here. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am a local church preacher, and it strikes me that any clergy person with integrity would be embarrassed at even having such an article. If they aren't embarrassed, that just confirms their non-notable nature. Yes, it's odd, but then dumb pokemon characters don't willingly take on any moral codes. Delete.-- KJPurscell 04:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Polur
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete No google results found for such a phrase Wickethewok 21:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable and/or original research / dictdef / protoneologism . — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Garbage. -- Krashlandon (e) 22:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kusma (討論) 22:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Adrian. -- Alpha269 00:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator: Consider using the
proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. There has been too much meatpuppeteering here that I can in good faith count the votes from very new users. From the established users, we have a unanimous delete consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
John Bambenek (2nd Nomination)
- Second nomination. The prior nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Broken AfD nom by anon,
[36] that was incompletely de-listed by an admin. Re-listing. —
Adrian~enwiki (
talk) 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- References: :eWeek [37] PCWorld [38] InfoWorld [39] SearchSecurity [40] Consumer Affairs [41] C-Net [42] State of Oregon [43] his own college [44] Seatlle Times [45] LA Times [46] The NYTimes article [47]
- KEEP- He is an influential member of the blogging community. He did excellent work breaking key stories such as the CNN X story in late 2005, working on the image recovery that helped prove it to be a technical glitch. He also does articles that help other bloggers, hundreds at times, write stories. --
RealTeen 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: User's first edit -- Ragib 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- It seems to me that Bambenek has been in the news, and is a member of the media.--
KenderTWA 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: User's first edit -- Ragib 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- He's a writer and highly respected IT professional that is very well-known in several technical and literary circles. There's no reason to delete him at all. There are far more articles that are much more deserving of deletion.
Kit Jarrell 02:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Slightly odd; this is this user's twenty-first edit; he's made four edits to articles, and has only made one other edit (last December) since 02:56, 27 August 2005 [48].-- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- Well known in technical/security circles ... definitely a keeper! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trejrco ( talk • contribs)
- Speedy Keep. First, this is a renomination from less than 3 months ago, nothing has changed except perhaps even more notable has been achieved by the subject being in the New York Times and other newspapers. Lexis-Nexis showed he's been quoted also in the LA Times and he shows up in dozens of articles. The opinions above that we should make exceptions to what normally constitute notablity notwithstanding, it's clear he is notable. The irony of citing that his blog is ranking at or near the top 100 of 23 some odd million blogs is thick. Second, this was created by an anon and is clearly a bad faith nomination as noted above by someone who was barely familiar enough with the process to even start it correctly. This article stood on its own two feet a few months ago, nothing has changed. -- 130.126.139.14 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is a vanity page. Why does he have his own page? What has he done? What is he famous for?
12.221.103.5 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- User's 19th edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This local [person] should not be mentioned at wikipedia. --
130.126.146.103 23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (personal attacks removed)
- User's only edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree, this guy is in my department... [personal attacks removed]... doesn't deserve to be on wikipedia. --
130.126.139.129 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- User's 4th edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. [personal attacks removed] --
130.126.146.169 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- User's only edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This guy is .... on campus. While that makes him unique, it is because most people [don't] believe his politics. He shouldn't be given the time of day. --
130.126.147.85 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (personal attacks removed)
- User's only edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep per previous AfD, possible attack nom (but WP:AGF), and 'cause anons don't generally get to nominate things for AfD. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 06:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with 12.221.103.5. I've previous argued against including John Bambenek on the List of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign people. I repeat the argument here.
- I don't think he's notable because:
- his publications do not qualify him because (according to his resume) for all but two of them, he was only a contributor. This hardly qualifies him as a notable academic (yet).
- his blog does not qualify him because it's not notable enough [49] (yet).
- and writing for the college newspaper does not qualify.
- There are also all the arguments made in the first AfD. Notably, John Bambenek himself has done much of the early editing on the page and the person that created the page is someone from Champaign, IL (maybe even Bambenek?).
- He has mentioned that he has been quoted in the New York Times as a security expert. Granted, but there isn't enough notability to qualify his inclusion.
- People have previously accused me of bias. See my counter. Superdosh 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Superdosh. Jbamb is a valuable editor but I don't see anything that makes him notable by Wikipedia standards. Even if the incredible undocumented claim that during the first year after his graduation from college in 2001 "he led several development teams and became the resident expert in information security and Sun Microsystems products" at Ernst & Young (now Capgemini, which employs over 61,000 people) is true, that doesn't make him notable. This is a personal vanity article and should be deleted. Whether the new users are sock puppets or not is irrelevant; the article cannot stand on its own feet. -- DS1953 talk 17:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. He is a columnist in a local college newspaper for which the editor-in-chief didn't even warrant an article until a recent scandal. His blog receives few comments, suggesting few readers. The first publication for which he is listed as a "contributor" [50] has roughly a hundred similar contributors. Of the first six other contributors from that list (William Ahern, Jared Allison, Dan Astoorian, Corey Badeaux, Carmen Banks, and Marion Bates), none have Wikipedia entries. eaolson 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete His most notable merits for inclusion are his work in information security. To put his accomplishments in perspective, an average PhD graduate in computer science may write dozens of papers for peer-reviewed conferences and journals over their lifetime and have hundreds of references to their work from other scholarly works (a measure of impact). John's publications do not appear to be peer-reviewed, do not appear to be scholarly in nature, and do not appear to have a high level of impact. So his accomplishments are less than that of the average PhD graduate and unless half the PhD graduates should have entries, I don't see why John should have one.
67.171.73.202 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note. The above was this users 7th contribution, all related to removing John Bambenek from articles and all at the same time this morning. Possible sock puppet. -- 12.203.38.138 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable, cant verify references.
Mike (
T
C)
01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Oh he's notable, he's notable on campus... He features prominently in the
Daily Illini's decision to run the Danish cartoons. He should... not rewarded with a wikipedia article. --
130.126.130.101 02:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [personal attacks removed]
- User's 3rd edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Yeah, in Ed Psy 430 a professor talked about
this column and how his illustration of a donkey was meant to convey that all black people are jackasses... --
130.126.147.166 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [personal attacks removed]
- User's only edit. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. and STOP ANONS FROM DELETING VOTES!!! Non-notable. Vanity page. I've had to re-add my vote here after an anon deleted a whole bunch of votes and discussion here. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy. In the interest of disclosure, it should be noted that I've removed several personal attacks from this page [51]. — Mar. 6, '06 [11:31] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
- Delete. per Superdosh and others. - Will Beback 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I am satified with the notability here. -- Alpha269 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This editor's account was about 10 hours old at the time of this edit. -- DS1953 talk 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- Comment: I'll not vote for or against this, but why do all these users crop up to vote keep (their first, or among 2/3 edits), whenever this is put on an afd? A m:checkuser seems to be needed to root out the hoard of socks. No, I'm not accusing anyone, but the three votes I marked are quite suspect (and the accounts created after the afd listing are invalid anyway). Thanks. --
Ragib 04:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: One could say the same about new/anon users creating AFD's in the first place. I encourage a checkuser just to end any suspicion on this matter that there is a vast John Bambenek sockpuppet conspiracy as I tire of the charge. --
Jbamb 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: No, John, I wasn't accusing you. The whole thing with anon users' doing fly-by tagging, afd listing is quite frustrating. This afd listing, in the first place, was inappropriately made by the anon. There is also the possiblity of
"straw man sockpuppets". So, whoever ends up closing this afd, needs to disregard the single-edit user's, voting either for or against the afd, as clearly most of these users are socks. Thanks. --
Ragib 04:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If you aren't accusing me then who exactly does these supposed socks belong to? This isn't the first time I've been accused of this crap, I'm not calling you out per se, I just want a sysop to do the math here and put the issue to bed so people stop accusing me of running this article. That's all. --
Jbamb 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:Again, I am *not* accusing you in any way. (replied in your talk page on that). The 3 users I marked are so clearly made up, that I somewhat think those votes are here for the opposite affect ... to make "Keep" votes look dubious. I don't have any reason to say you are running this article. The afd was inappropriately listed by an anon (from Champaign... surprise!!!), and many of the pro/against votes are motivated by personal agenda rather than the merit of the article/subject. Afd's should be taken objectively rather than personal issues. The afd listing itself shows a personal bias rather than a good faith nomination in part of the anon. -- Ragib 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If you aren't accusing me then who exactly does these supposed socks belong to? This isn't the first time I've been accused of this crap, I'm not calling you out per se, I just want a sysop to do the math here and put the issue to bed so people stop accusing me of running this article. That's all. --
Jbamb 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: No, John, I wasn't accusing you. The whole thing with anon users' doing fly-by tagging, afd listing is quite frustrating. This afd listing, in the first place, was inappropriately made by the anon. There is also the possiblity of
"straw man sockpuppets". So, whoever ends up closing this afd, needs to disregard the single-edit user's, voting either for or against the afd, as clearly most of these users are socks. Thanks. --
Ragib 04:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: One could say the same about new/anon users creating AFD's in the first place. I encourage a checkuser just to end any suspicion on this matter that there is a vast John Bambenek sockpuppet conspiracy as I tire of the charge. --
Jbamb 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment With regards to the New York Times article, here is another New York Times front page article on computer security (specifically wi-fi security) from March 5, 2006. They've quoted security experts from router-maker Belkin (Johnathan Bettino), tomshardware.com (Humphrey Cheung), ABI Research (Mike Wolf) and Symantec (David Cole). Not a single one of these people has a Wikipedia page (nor does anyone at all mentioned in the article). This is just to point out the fallacious argument that being in a front page article in the New York Times implies notability. -- Superdosh 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I know this is one of my first drafts, but I have used and edited on Wikipedia anonymously for quite a while. I actually didn't know registration had any benefits until recently. If you need to see some things I have done, I edited some parts of the entry on the ACLU, under the ACLU's Critics, and I did some editing on Scott Fuller, who is someone I talk to on a regular basis.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RealTeen (
talk •
contribs)
- Note: User's 5th edit (all 5 to this afd page). -- Ragib 18:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You are welcome to refute my argument. The reality is that John Bambenek is not a famous person (like Ludacris, Roger Ebert, etc) nor does he have the accomplishments of an olympic medalist (Bonnie Blair) to warrant being listed along with those famous people in the Champaign-Urbana Metro entry. He is not famous in Champaign-Urbana nor nationally. The fact that he has a couple fans running around adding his names to lists he isn't qualified for is pathetic. Again, I challenge you to refute my argument. What is his major contribution? What peer-reviewed conferences and journals contain this contribution? How does this contribution make him any more notable than the hundreds of other PhDs from UIUC with vastly superior vitaes full of peer-reviewed publications?
67.171.73.202 17:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Your argument needs no refutation because you are an anon attacker. However, plenty of people who aren't olympic medalists have bios. It's clear from your comments you have an axe to grind. The original anon poster was upset at a column he wrote last week, even Adrian recognized this is an attack afd. If he has enough visibility that whenever he writes a controversial column people try to delete his bio, it's clear he has more influence than people are giving him credit for. -- 130.126.147.87 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment To quote John from the discussion page- "It amuses me that this nomination was filed the very same week I was in a front page article in the New York Times. On second thought, maybe that does mean I have no credibility..." -- RealTeen 16:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It should be noted that John has linked directly to this page from his blog
[52] and that the vote may consequentially be biased by participation from his readership. If you look at timestamps, it appears most of the "keeps" come within a few hours after his blog post. Will everyone with a blog and a 10 person fan club get a wikipedia page?
67.171.73.202 19:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note. The above has been contributed by a user who has no contributions to wikipedia except to remove this article. Another anon participant with an attack afd. -- 130.126.147.87 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note Bambenek was also mentioned in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger today. [53]. -- 12.203.38.138 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Further Note He's been reference in eWeek [54], PcWorld [55], InfoWorld [56], SearchSecurity [57], Consumer Affairs [58], C-Net [59], and Answers.com lists him as a notable information security professional. He was referenced by the State of Oregon for his knowledge [60], and his own college points out his notability [61]. For his coverage on Hurricane Katrina, he was quoted in both the Seatlle Times [62], and the LA Times [63]. The NYTimes article was reproduced in dozens of papers around the world. Laslty, according to Lexis-Nexis, about a dozen of his articles were syndicated across the wire service. The threshold for notability seems much higher in this case then in many many others. -- 12.203.38.138 22:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do you realize that answers.com is a wikipedia mirror? Anyway, this AfD is so much full of anon's on both sides, I think it would be necessary to discard votes from anons, as well as accounts created after this AfD listing, or with less than 100 edits. -- Ragib 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Meta-comment. This discussion is growing increasingly heated. I would just like to gently remind everyone to assume good faith and to refrain from making personal attacks. Accusations of bias really don't help forward the discussion. eaolson 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Just wanted to point out that 130.126.x.x anons are all coming from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign campus. -- Ragib 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment about References I looked through the refs, and they are articles written by someone else who quotes this guy. Dosen't assert nobality.
Mike (
T
C)
04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: ISBN Request: This is a request that the ISBN numbers of any material claimed to have been published in book form be listed here so that authorship can be verified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.73.202 ( talk • contribs) .
ISBN Numbers- Oracle Security Step-by-Step (Pete Finnigan, ; ISBN: 0974372749; Paperback; 2004-04), Securing Windows 2000 Step by Step (Jeff Shawgo, ; ISBN: 0967299292; Paperback; 2001-07-01) were the only two I could find with an ISBN search. As reference, he isn't listed as editor but contributor for those books. You can view a couple of them at [64]. As reference, you can find copies of the books online to verify he is listed as a contributor for them here and here. -- 12.203.38.138 04:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is the most acrominous AfD I've seen in a long time. It includes sysops deleting user comments [65]. It demonstrates a complete lack of following the process. There is a crtieria for Second Nominations, this doesn't meet it. This was started by an anon unfamiliar with wikipedia because they didn't even add the AfD right, this never made the WP:PROD process, and no discussion or debate was attempted before dumping this 2nd nom in. After seeing this level of sockpuppetry, I decided to take a look in depth on this one. There seems to be two criteria of notability that is claimed here. First is as an information security professional, second is as a blogger/columnist.
- In general, this user has over [66] 277 unique Google mentions, almost a hundred more than the last time and more than most articles that do get to stay. He is mentioned in dozens of news articles which is amazingly dismissed out of hand. Since when does being in a front page article in the New York Times not mean anything? In many cases, that is ipso facto proof of notability and that ends the discussion. Why are the criteria being thrown out just to vote delete?
- In information security, his material that he has authored does certainly seem to meet the WP:BIO criteria of 5,000 or more readers. Some mention that he doesn't have much in peer review journals, but any research that is notable enough for the New York Times certainly bypasses that threshold. Not all research in journals makes it into the mainstream media, research that does, especially if it makes the New York Times and international papers, most certainly is notable by any definition of that word. If 5000 people is the criteria, why is a readership in the millions being discarded out of hand?
- In blogging, his comments have appeared in the LA Times and Seattle Times. Any blogger mentioned in the mainstream media is pretty much considered notable. In fact Wikipedia:Notability (websites) states that multiple non-trivial media mentions is enough to establish notability. That threshold has been more than crossed here. His blog is ranked #104 in the Truth Laid Bear system out of 51,578 blogs (top .2%) [67]. Technorati ranks him at 1008/29.9 Million [68] (top .003%). He is an apparent right-winger that has enough visibility that he was mentioned and criticized by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee [69]. His political opponents, the Democratic Party, see him as notable enough to respond to. His paper, an independent and self-financed corporation has a circulation of 20,000 [70]. He is a featured writer on Blogcritics and stoptheaclu.com which both have readerships above 50,000 a day. The 5000 person threshold is more than crossed here.
- It seems that some of the votes here are not considerations of the content but those who want to vote no for the sake of voting no. This process has been horribly abused in this case and will likely, instead of reach any consensus, land this in Deletion Review. The criteria for notability has been more than crossed by any objective standard. This AfD shouldn't even be considered because it is a sham 2nd nom, independent of that, the 1st AfD came to the right conclusion. The criteria and process exists to prevent circuses like this from taking place that shamefully include sysops deleting supporting comments. That process and the criteria should be followed. This article should stay. -- 130.126.139.14 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Moved to comments becausen not only is this a new user ("I've seen in a long time"!), but it's the second vote from this IP address. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 08:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Statistics of fake vs genuine contributions
Intended as an aid to the closing admin. This isn't a vote, so the simple numbers are not the point; nevertheless:
- Keep
- Definitely genuine: 0
- Fake or dubious: 7
- Delete
- Definitely genuine: 6
- Fake or dubious: 9
-- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oi vey! *Insert sound of trout hitting Mel's head* What 'cha think you're doing? And that was a really lame disclaimer, too. "Nevertheless" it is interesting to see very new contributors taking part in both sides of a debate.
brenneman
{T}
{L} 12:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"[V]ery new contributors"? Euphemism of the week? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- More like euphemism of the weak, although that's redunadant and repetitive. But if we assume this is more than one person and think of these as potential "converts" I'll wear the shame of using insipid language.
brenneman {T} {L} 03:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Boy is Mine (2x Platinum)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Providence Country Day School