- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 (it is now a redirect, that page also to be deleted) -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 22:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
If monkeys were masons
Delete. Non-notable, article created by the person who runs the company that produced the film. Tufflaw 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not in IMDB. seems nn. -- Pboyd04 01:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
01:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC) - Delete monkeycruft. Endomion 01:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Pboyd04. Movementarian 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. - NeoJustin 02:44, Devember 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn--> Newyorktimescrossword 03:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per NN, can recreate page if IMDB adds it. VegaDark 07:21, 29 December 2005 (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 -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 22:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
If Monkeys Were Masons
Delete. See previous entry Tufflaw 01:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- This page is in its early stages and is one of my first contributions to wikipedia. As regards the film, this might not be a hollywood blockbuster release but it is very much an available, well received film and distribution is continuing to grow. This film is important as a true reflection of the experiences had by the hundreds of thousands of young people who travel to this area every year.
- I agree that Come the Monkeys should be merged in here and will perform the operation shortly.
- Why so keen to delete?? Not what I had expected given the inclusiveness of the project I have witnessed thus far.
-
User:Deiz 01:05, 29 Decemeber (GMT)
- I took the liberty of moving your comment around so it appears on the AFD page correctly. All of these pages you created were nominated because they are either about you personally, your company, or your films, in violation of the Wikipedia vanity guidelines. Tufflaw 01:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, i see what you mean. Ah well, was fun learning how to create articles... Deiz 01:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's OK, nothing wrong with an honest mistake. Check out some of the links I posted at your talk page, there's a lot of info there on how to be a happy and successful Wikipedian. Welcome! Tufflaw 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete you seemed to have grasped the formatting, now just to find a topic that isn't about you :) - FrancisTyers 01:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment good taste in music though! Why no Kyuss? - FrancisTyers 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete monkeycruft. Endomion 01:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, mostly because
Wikipedia is not infinite. These articles do not assert notability, and therefore should be deleted.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
01:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Movementarian 02:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Userify (anything that is not in clear violation of guidelines (other than than notability and vanity) and that contains significant work ought to be considered for userification, IMHO) ++ Lar 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, the movie hasn't got enough media attention to become notable. -- ReyBrujo 01:56, 30 December 2005 (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 -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 22:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Come The Monkeys
Delete. See previous entry Tufflaw 01:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete also not in IMDB. seems nn. -- Pboyd04 01:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete monkeycruft. Endomion 01:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, mostly because
Wikipedia is not infinite. These articles do not assert notability, and therefore should be deleted.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
01:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Movementarian 02:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. - NeoJustin 02:44, Devember 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete absurd, nn, a joke--> Newyorktimescrossword 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, the movie hasn't got enough media attention to become notable. -- ReyBrujo 01:57, 30 December 2005 (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 -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Rob redding
NN, possible vanity. - FrancisTyers 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete pn!Keep and move to Rob Redding and add tags. - FrancisTyers 12:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)- Keep. Black radio personality heard throughout US. Please provide serious nom with reasons. -- JJay 01:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Check
this out. One of the articles that comes up says he is syndicated in all 50 states, which is pretty notable, if you ask me. Just a suggestion, because I've messed up before too, you might want to read into
Wikipedia's Vanity Guidelines in the future before you reccomend "possible vanity."
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
01:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Although the article could use a lot of work, he is a syndicated radio host and merits inclusion in my opinion. Movementarian 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but this entire article should be rewritten. I can't find the source, but it looks a copy/paste to me, which means its likely a copyvio (if it's proven a copyvio, then it will obviously need to be deleted, but I can't prove it). Anyway, the person warrants an article. -- Rob 03:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep Article should only be kept if it is re-written and made better.--> Newyorktimescrossword 03:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep. Resolve the issues mentioned in the other comments. Logophile 10:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Yes, the article is poorly written - but that merits a {{cleanup}} or {{wikify}} tag, not a nomination to be deleted as Newyorktimescrossword has suggested. - Rebelguys2 12:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm closing this as KEEP but the page is in a sorry state. To the "conditional keeps" above, note that bad format is never (that I know of) a cause for deletion, if it is truly bad format and nothing else. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 22:08, 30 December 2005 (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 merged and redirected by Thivierr. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
CILV
Delete. non-notable, station is apparently only two days old. Tufflaw 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Station may only be two days old, but the parent company is older. No less significant than other local radio stations in Wikipedia, just newer. Movementarian 02:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Thank god radio stations are still being started. -- JJay 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- merge/redirect to CILV-FM. -- Rob 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep despite it being new, it has the potential to be notable and per tufflaw also. --> Newyorktimescrossword 04:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but I'll still keep listening to my far superior
XM.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
07:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep since we seem to keep all genuine licensed broadcast radio stations. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 12:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Per
Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations, Wikipedia policy explicitly permits articles on broadcast radio stations. The fact a station is two days old has no bearing on this policy. This would be a slamdunk except for one thing: I already wrote this up at
CILV-FM a few weeks ago. (Even licensed-but-not-launched stations are allowed articles, if their call sign, owner, frequency, format and expected launch date are known, and Wikipedia policy also expects the radio station's article to include the -FM suffix.) Redirect to
CILV-FM; I've already copied any content that wasn't already in the other article.
Bearcat 17:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations is not policy, and a number of projects involve creating articles that end up being deleted (sad but true). But, you're still basically correct (in terms of defacto policy), in that AFD precedent for some time, has been to keep broadcasters (radio and TV) even if they're "just" local stations. I recently added a comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Precedents#local broadcasters suggesting we updated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Entertainment to say that such stations are now deemed notable according to more recent AFD precedent. The only reason I didn't change it myself, is I would like to see some agreement before changing it unilaterly. Nominations, like this one, are likely to be repeated if people are under the impression stations like this are being deleted (which they're not). -- Rob 17:49, 29 December 2005 (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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 12:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
SWCity
Virtual community with 20 members, no more significant than a small MUD or web forum
- Delete. Gazpacho 03:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete no media attention claimed, 20 members, 5,246,179 alexa rating, I'd say they fail all 3 things in WP:WEB. -- Pboyd04 03:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously not notable. - Bootstoots 03:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please keep no, this is notable, it is WIDELY known by the activeworlds community which has thousands of users. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kol65 (
talk •
contribs) (Kol65 was original author of article)
- Delete; *known* could mean "heard of it once"; a few thousand "knowing" of it doesn't make it notable. Just 20 *active members* suggests it isn't significant. Merge and redirect also acceptable; info may be worthwhile as small section in larger article. Fourohfour 10:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete 20 members != thousands. NN
Search
4
Lancer
04:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC) - Delete per NN or Merge with Active Worlds. VegaDark 07:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as per extension of nn-bio. Shall I? -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 12:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete under New! IMPROVED! A7. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 18:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per it's own admissions of tinynes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusduck ( talk • contribs)
- Delete, it may qualify for a Speedy under CSD:A7 per club, but I am unsure. -- ReyBrujo 02:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wow, that is VERY NN. - Liontamer 09:05, 3 January 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. — JIP | Talk 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hugh Flynt
Non notable, does not appear in All Music Guide, all references in other Wiki articles created by article's primary author, only Google hit is article. Cigarette 04:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment does appear in IMDB (under birth name) all small time parts probably a nn actor. -- Pboyd04 04:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - He does appear in the IMDB under "Jamie Mahoney", but may not fulfill Wikipedia notability guidelines. — TheKMan talk 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting to get more consensus New votes below this line, please--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NMG or WP:BIO. PJM 14:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete doesn't appear to be that notable a rapper. --
(aeropagitica)
15:36, 4 January 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 Cobra 02:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Melchers
It's just an obvious example of someone who should have instead been playing around in the sandbox. It details three non-notable names in an unwikified format, and the article title is not one that appears readily salvageable into anything Wikipedia-worthy.
Frag 08:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I apologize; it was about 4 AM here at the time, and I carelessly did not check the history. I'm changing my vote to a Keep. -- Frag
Delete per nom.Keep, saw vandalized version when I did my original vote. VegaDark 09:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)- This is a nice nomination, so I'm rather sad to bring news that it's kinda boneheaded, in its way. The article started off as a disambig, but was vandalised. It's the vandalised version that has been nominated for deletion. I have reverted back to the good one. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 11:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep after the revert. -- Pboyd04 15:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Now it is fixed. Obina 15:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. All three people are notable and the building is notable as well. This is a valid disambiguation. --
Soothing
R 21:17, 29 December 2005 (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.
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Bellhaven (2nd nomination) for the nomination in June 2006.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 -- Ichiro 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Native Guns
This appears to be a non-notable rap group. They have no listing on allmusic, and the small number of links returned by Google are mostly either geocities or myspace pages. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The second half of this article is a copyvio of their MySpace webpage, http://www.myspace.com/kiwi Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Article appears well researched and deals with an important Filipino hip hop/rap group. Yes, it's absolutely correct that non-USA rap (or any non-English language rap for that matter) is not generally covered by All Music Guide, no matter its quality or importance to its local culture or subculture, all the more reason such groups be covered here.
Badagnani 12:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please review WP:MUSIC. Which inclusion criteria does this group meet? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Furthermore, these musicians are born and raised in California, what do you mean by non-USA rap group?
Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- An Internet search shows that the group is well known and performs widely in Filipino and Asian Pacific American cultural festivals, and that it is one of the more active and well regarded hip hop groups in the Filipino American hip hop subculture (probably the third most important hip hop subculture in the U.S. after African American and Puerto Rican American). Further, the group's work frequently appears in Filipino and Asian Pacific American print and radio media. Has also toured throughout the U.S. and Canada. From WP:Music:
- "Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre."
- "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture."
- "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources."
- An Internet search shows that the group is well known and performs widely in Filipino and Asian Pacific American cultural festivals, and that it is one of the more active and well regarded hip hop groups in the Filipino American hip hop subculture (probably the third most important hip hop subculture in the U.S. after African American and Puerto Rican American). Further, the group's work frequently appears in Filipino and Asian Pacific American print and radio media. Has also toured throughout the U.S. and Canada. From WP:Music:
Badagnani 00:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:MUSIC based on the article, and I can't find anything that would show otherwise. And there really is no systemic bias against Californians. - Bobet 13:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete lets start a systemic bias against Californians! (actual reason: fails WP:MUSIC per above). -- Pboyd04 15:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the article on the Native Guns should not be deleted on the grounds that they are a not only a staple in current Filipino-American hip-hop culture, but of independent (indie) hip-hop music and are also well known activists for human/Asian Pacific American rights. They are known within that community and yes while they are NOT on allmusic.com, so aren't Francis Magalona, or Andrew E. who's impact in the history of Philipppine-based Filipino hip-hop cannot be disputed. Neither are even "Asin" or Florante who are national stars and heroes and whos anti-Marcos songs such as "Upuan" and "Balita" played a big role in the inspiring the famous 1986 EDSA People's Power Revolution and also have had their songs along with Freddie Aguilar translated into more than 20 languages and have become hit songs in other countries other than the Philippines. What these artists meant to Philippine-based hip-hop and rock then is exactly what the Native Guns mean to the Filipino-American hip-hop community now. It should also be noted that the Native Guns' Kiwi, (born Jack DeJesus) went to high school with the world famous Black Eyed Peas' Apl.de.ap (Allan Pineda) as well as Will.i.am and was one of the influences young Allan had upon moving here from the Philippines. Furthermore the Native Guns have been featured in numerous magazine and newspaper articles, and were named one of L.A.'s "Top 10 Most Intriguing Bands" by the L.A. Alternative Press. Links:
Native Guns featured in Canada's Vancouver Georgia Straight Weekly-[ [10]] Named one of L.A.'s "Top Ten Most Intriguing Bands"-[ [11]] Featured in asianweek.com- [ [12]] Fil-Arts Fest- [ [13]] sfweekly.com- [ [14]]
The duo was also featured in Jointz Mag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.125.85 ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 December 2005 User:Wikipedian13
- Keep Well written article. I see no reason this should be deleted. Check two you 23:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I'm amazed- this is an incredibly informative article on the underground asian hiphop scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.7.193 ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 January 2006
- This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Hey this is Kiwi of the Native Guns. i just found out about all this recently, so bear with me. anyway, as far as the article, yes there's some cut-n-paste, but whatever's written about us looks satisfactory. not sure how else to go about this. we're also mentioned in an article on wikipedia regarding filipino hip hop [ [15]]. i can clean it up if need be, but for the most part, it's accurate. if you need me to add or clarify anything let me know groundworkmusic@yahoo.com. as far as whether or not we're 'worthy' of being on here well that's not my decision but i think the track record speaks for itself. sorry if i didn't follow the format, i never even heard of wikipedia until now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.4.166 ( talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Rob 01:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete probably qualifies as band-vanity.
ALKIVAR
™
12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC) - Delete, fails WP:V. If we can't verify what you say is the truth, then we can't have it in the wiki. RasputinAXP talk contribs 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep based on writeups in regional music and culture magazines. Tim Pierce 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per above comments. Jcuk 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I am a doctoral student writing about cultural studies and social transformation at UC Berkeley. Native Guns and Kiwi are one of the top hip hop groups within that APIA community, and in terms of messaging, bridges everything from the personal to the community and the international. Native Guns is well known and loved in the community from LA to the Bay to NYC and Chi-town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.134.213 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep Falls under:
- Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city
- Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
- Information is verifiable under multiple sources (specifically within the APIA music and activism scene), including:
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankuei ( talk • contribs)
- comment - Some people make bad-faith copyright violation nominations, in order to do an end run around the {afd} procedure. An article I started was on the receiving end of someone willing to take advantage of the three week long backlog in addressing copy-vios. So I checked this assertion. The copy-vio assertion is solid. I went back to the beginning of the article, to see whether rhe article could be saved by reeling back to an earlier version that was not a copy-vio. The very first contributor's version incorporated material from its external links.
- This does not mean there should be no article about this band. If the original author of the material on the myspace web-pages that has been incorporated into this article releases it under an appropriate liscence, or puts their material in the public domain, the copy-vio concern goes away... -- Geo Swan 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Excellent article, seems notable enough. Kevin 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Looks notable to me. A.J.A. 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Well researched, needs some help with the style, but overall no way that this should be deleted. Soo 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Terence Ong Talk 14:15, 5 January 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 wasno consensus reached, defaulting to keep. Tznkai 10:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Ali Sina
There is no proof that Ali Sina is who he says he is. He might just be an a group of islamophobes with an agenda. There is no way to objectively determine who or what Ali Sina is, all we have is "his" own words and "his" hatefilled website م 11:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- NOTE I suspect that the editor who put the page up for deletion is a sockpuppet , only a few edits in Wikipedia.-- CltFn 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: Just that a section of people finds it offensive doesn't mean we silence the voice. It is 21st century, we are not barbarians and just that I disagree with him doesn't constitute reason enough to delete.
- Strong Delete: Very strong attack on a sixth of the world. One of my best friends is Muslim, and she even wished me a Merry Christmas, so I highly doubt Islam is a religion of hate. Sceptre( Talk) 12:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Very controversial character but he does exist in some form. With the same logic we should delete number of other articles about other religious commentators who use similar rhetoric. Article is relatively NPOV - Skysmith 13:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep did you even read the page, most of it is criticism of him. Needs a cleanup tag added though, and possible NPOV'ing - FrancisTyers 13:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I feel we need to focus on the importance of the Website here. We may strongly disagree with what it says, but that's not an adequate reason for deletion. Dlyons493 Talk 13:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Alexa rank >40,000, Wikipedia is the top site linking in according to Alexa. Thgere is no practical limit to the number of bigots out there, we are not obliged to cover every one. Existence and content are both verifiable, though the sources generally fall well below reliable. Of course this could just be my wishy-washy liberal side coming to the fore. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 14:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Attack page. -- Pboyd04 16:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete a person who runs his own webpage to attack a religion. Agree with what Just zis Guy, you know? said about every bigot having an article. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are misrepresenting Ali Sina with your generalizations, I wonder why? Here we see the true face of Anonimous editor , not the one he presents at his request for adminship. Ali Sina is a humanist and stands for human rights and freedom of religion , freedom of thought and speech. He has taken a couragous stand against human oppresion of the vilest kind. I wonder why you omit to mention that? -- CltFn 13:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete . The article , most probably made by himself . Every now & then we have got a person ( may be him , may be his followers ) who wanna turn it into a Sina temple . These IDs are impossible to deal with ( see the talk page ). The article & links are mainly used to increase the search reasults when people google for it . Other than that , a person ( or group ) who's sole existance is based on a single hate site....I dont see a single reason for having this article . The article has always been a big waste of time , & if it exists ,it will remain to be that way . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 20:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Revolución ( talk) 01:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Good or bad, this guy appears to have drawn a good deal of attention. --
Mwalcoff 01:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Could you tell us which good deal of attention he has drawn?
google news.
Szvest 05:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
this google news search is better.
gren
グレン 05:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The External Links section of the article indicates he's made some waves. --
Mwalcoff 05:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Apart from Asia Times and [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 WND] (both articles of late 2004), the rest are affiliate websites of hims. Cheers -- Szvest 05:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
- The External Links section of the article indicates he's made some waves. --
Mwalcoff 05:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
this google news search is better.
gren
グレン 05:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Could you tell us which good deal of attention he has drawn?
google news.
Szvest 05:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep-people who are voting to delete seem to dislike the person, and have fixable concerns with the article, but no reason why there shouldnt be an article on this. The external links show how notable this guy is. How pissed of you guys are proves how notable this is. Wikipedia is not censored. There is no reason why this article couldnt be improved to discuss this notable and verifiable topic in a NPOV. Masterdebater 07:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Why should every critic of Islam have a seperate article in Wikipedia ? If this is because of "his" site then it does not meet any three guidelines mentioned at WP:WEB. This site even site do not have a valid whois record. -- Soft coder Talk 09:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - Not notable, being controversial and insulting is not enough to have own article. -- A.Garnet 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --NaconKantari 01:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep This clown exists and seems to have a strong following. What better way to disabuse him of his disgusting notions than to hold his feet to the flame of public exposure? D e nni ☯ 03:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - I'll definetely vote Keep but only if the article is cleaned up from too much detail from his website and his opponents' sites. We should summarize both his views and his opponents w/o quoting large chunks of comments or writings from both sites! The second point is that refrain from quoting him in all relegious articles as his notability is contested. He's no different than Israel Shamir (though Shamir is not a pseudonym but a real person) and the treatment should be no different! Only then I would vote Keep. Therefore, I'd appreciate to know if the Keep votes above agree about this. Cheers -- Szvest 17:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
- keep Nickbee 06:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)nickbee
- Delete Doesn't seem very notable. Yuber (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't know whether he's one man or half a dozen schoolgirls, because there don't seem to be any credible third-party sources either about the website or about Ali Sina. The article is a violation of
WP:V.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 09:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't push that analogy too far. Deap throat was known only to woodward but he still deserved an article. Although, Ali Sina is no Felt. I think this is more of an issue of non notable... while verifiability is making sure you write the article letting users know that the only source about him is him. Not that I really need to tell you that...
gren
グレン 10:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Deepthroat was written about by journalists in reputable newspapers. Ali Sina has no credible third-party sources that have written about him, so far as I know. If he really is the only source of information about himself or the website, the article shouldn't exist, because the lack of third-party sources speaks to lack of notability as well as verifiability. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't push that analogy too far. Deap throat was known only to woodward but he still deserved an article. Although, Ali Sina is no Felt. I think this is more of an issue of non notable... while verifiability is making sure you write the article letting users know that the only source about him is him. Not that I really need to tell you that...
gren
グレン 10:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- And even then deep throat was IMO questionable as a separate subject outside Watergate until his identity was known, at which point it turns out he was a notable person anyway. Or did you mean the movie? ;-) -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD? 16:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- And even then deep throat was IMO questionable as a separate subject outside Watergate until his identity was known, at which point it turns out he was a notable person anyway. Or did you mean the movie? ;-) -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
- Well, his wikipedia account would often make comments such as "We are all Sina". Yuber (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Could use some chopping of quotes, but I fail to see how the contents of the article are unverifiable. Further, the original move to delete seems to have been by someone with no name. I smell an intent to suppress and censor. rudra 11:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this guy is allowed to express his point of view even if many find them offensive, and there are plenty of anti (put you favorite religion here) hate site out there. On the other side we just can't pretend he doesn't exist and burry our head in the sand. We better have a strong NPOV entry about this guy which can balance his radical and personal views.-- Khalid hassani 20:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He's a published writer and is notable enough. It also seems that the article has recieved a fair amount of interest from Wikipedias readers, and it has been edited maybe around 6 or 700 times since it was created around a year ago. -- Karl Meier 22:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- That might be because every week he(or the people he trains for publicitizing his views on WP) add a lot of praise to him . The article is a continuous battle field b/w him/his followers & people who want to keep it NPOV (see talk page). F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not notable -- Snakes 01:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable, or move to faithfreedom.org. Palmiro | Talk 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete -- Khalid! 11:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete(pls check my new vote below if you can find a way out of this jungle) - Excesive trolling defending the article. Trolling (played by remote control from a few online forums) for an article about a non-notable person/alien. I was thinking of voting keep, then thinking of not voting in a scandalous rfa like this one, but I believe now that this operations is clearly manipulative. -- Szvest 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
- Addendum - I've just noted this new addition in the article by an anon [24]. Please read it carefully! The additions is a quote from the subject's website stating that "My site is not hate-filled and this is clear to any unbiased person." This is what the article serves for! A forum for an alien, a pseudonym!!! Also it states " "With all due respect, as long as you are a Muslim you are a potential terrorist and this is the message that I want to communicate to the world." " W/o Wikipedia, the subject is everything but notable! The new additions are directed to wikipedia and not to the Washington Post! Wiki me up™
- Strong Keep. As Ali Sina says himself, his credentials are not relevant to the truthfulness of his claims. And these claims are true. And truth should be voiced. When Muslim countries will start to treat religious minorities as it should be, there could be a talk about "Islamophobia". For now, it is only the "Kafirophobia" that is strongly present. If there is an article about Islamophobia here, there should be one about Kafirophobia as well. Also, Mr. Sceptre should know that "best friends" cannot change Quran and Ahadith. And one person does not represent "one fifth" of the world. So this vote is not based at all.-- Aleverde 15:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Admins plz see the history . Anon IPs are deleting delete votes . Thanks . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 09:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- strong Keep He is a published author and the leader of the ex muslim apostate movement. If the article was not notable then why all the interest, why all the edit wars. And I wonder why a particular group of editors has been toiling incessantly to denigrate Ali Sina and his work.-- CltFn 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable -- Kefalonia 14:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC
- Keep It does not matter whether he is or is not a "real person." Fictional characters also have a place in Wikipedia. It does not also matter whether it is a pseudonym of just one or of several individuals. All that matters is that some author who calls himself Ali Sina and claims to be whatever he claims to be maintains a popular website devoted to everybody knows what despite repeated opinions that he is not notable.-- Pecher 20:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding verifiability, it is still possible to include self-published information in biographies of living persons. I do not see any problems in this case if his biographical information, clearly attributed to his website, is included in the article. It is certainly not ideal, but still possible.-- Pecher 20:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see the article any less ignorant than the other anti-Islam articles found on Wikipedia. For example, check out Category:Books critical of Islam. -- JuanMuslim 1m 16:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Ali Sina is notable enough at least for thousands of sites that mention his name and quote him. He has also been interviewed in radios. In no place he has said Ali Sina is a pseudonym. This is something Wikipedians have written about him and he has neither confirmed it nor denied it. [25]. Despite that encyclopaedias cover totally imaginary personages including mythological figures. The fact that a personage is imaginary is not reason for him not to be reported. There is more evidence that Ali Sina exists as a real person than there is for Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, Anaximander, Anaximenes and Democritus. These ancient philosophers are only mentioned by Plato and there is not even a book left from them. All it takes to dismiss their existence is to doubt Plato and yet no sane person would do such thing.
- Let us face the truth. All these vilifications and belittling of Ali Sina are motivated by religious hatred. It is basically the same editors who constantly censored anything I wrote on Islam who are now claiming this Article should be deleted. This is another attempt to censorship and silencing the views contrary to Islam.
- Wikipedia has articles about less notable persons than Ali Sina. There is no pandemonium about deleting them because those people do not criticize Islam. This commotion is about Islam and not about Ali Sina. It just shows the intolerance of Muslims to even acknowledge the existence of apostates and critics of Islam. Sadly these people come here with a religious agenda and not to promote knowledge and impartiality. Denying this fact, because it may offend these people is like hiding our heads in the sand and not willing to see the obvious. OceanSplash Jan 5, 2006 23:16
- Firstly, mythical figures are noted as mythical. I really don't think you want us saying Ali Sina is mythical. There is also tons of literature written about Zeus — this is not true about Ali Sina. Also, it's not because he is an ex-Muslim. The Ibn Warraq article is not up for deletion because just about no one thinks he is not notable. So, we shouldn't exactly oversimplify this to being Muslims against non-Muslims. My personal opinion is that a lot of people are voting delete because this article has attracted loads of anons and unfortunately there have been calls on the FFI forums to come here and edit... well, when people come to get into edit wars on an article that is most definitely not necessarily encyclopedic then people will want to delete it. gren グレン 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with OceanSplash. Why else would someone delete my "Keep" comments only 18 minutes after I had posted them here on January 4th? (please see History) Anonymous 5 January, 2005 8:38 PM Eastern Time
- The reason is likely because your vote won't be counted anyways. User with little or no edits votes don't really count. Although, I did not see the particular circumstances.
gren
グレン 05:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Gren Your contribution in this page goes beyond just giving your opinion. You are responding to every “Keep” post and are being militant. This is indication of strong bias, a kind of bias that can only be inspired by religious zeal. Your views can hardly be taken as impartial in this matter. OceanSplash Jan 5, 2006 23:36
- He asked a question. I answered. One would almost thing that if I felt so strongly I'd vote delete... no? Or you know, delete it myself with my special little button. ~_~ If you look at AfD policies admins don't taken into account votes of users who have incredibly few contributions or seem to have come only for an AfD. Find me any user who voted delete with so few edits and I'll tell them too. However, if you look at it, mostly users who voted "keep" have so few edits. Geez, man. :) gren グレン 10:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Ali Sina is not nearly notable enough to be a necessary entity for this encyclopedia. However, this is wikipedia and we are not paper. We have pages for minor porn stars, really non-notable albums and I'm sure I could dig out other articles. Ali Sina is about on that level. The only thing that makes him different is that he has an internet following and that makes his article prone to edit wars. So, I'm not going to delete it... and last time I voted keep... it really causes too many problems for its worth so this time I won't taken any initiative to save it. gren グレン 11:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I think Fayssal's Israel Shamir comparison is a good one, and we have a long and reasonably sympathetic article on Shamir. If this one needs to be cleaned up and improved, let's do so, but that is not grounds for deletion of the topic. Babajobu 20:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment per Fayssal ... the article is cleaned up from too much detail from his website and his opponents' sites. We should summarize both his views and his opponents w/o quoting large chunks of comments or writings from both sites! I agree, and if the article doesn't improve in a while and it is brought up for deletion again I may consider revising my vote. But for now it stays as Keep, this seems like a content dispute that has spilled over into AfD. - FrancisTyers 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The article provides one person's view and there is no attempt to pass it off as fact or endorse it. Like Babajobu said, it's the same issue as Israel Shamir article. Do we silence someone because we find their views offensive or different from ours? I hope not. Aiden 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep while keeping my comments on my previous delete vote - My first comment before voting delete was a thought for a keep on the grounds that this article should be cleaned up and abide by the rules of Wikipedia. After the confirmation of Babajobu and Francis, I change my vote to keep with ease, somehow getting an insurance. I'll be up observing that happening and don't mind if I'd sometimes get bold applying the rules. The trolling is not acceptable there. Trolls, be aware! Cheers -- Szvest 21:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Edits by anons and first-time editors as well as related comments are placed here
keep! - why are people worried whether he is ex-muslim or not? does his charges aginst islam become void in that case? it is not right to censor thoughts, everyone has a right to express his ideas. so keep this article and try to improve it!
- Comment Wikipedia isn't the place for people to express their ideas, it is an encyclopedia--a collection of knowledge. Logophile 01:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Both Ali Sina and Faithfreedom.org are notable. Faithfreedom was quoted in a report by the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment on the murder of Theo van Gogh. -- Kwnl 0:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rudra, I'm just not very computer-literate, I thought I did sign my comment if not my user name is (م). My intention is not to censor anyone. My objection to this racist's entry are basic. First, I don't know how popular this "guy" is, but the first time I heard about him was on wikipedia. His name was constantly thrown around by someone on the Islam discussion board. That user has since been blocked for his racist/hatefilled/islamphobic comments (Gren I think you know who I am reffering to ;). Hence, I do not want wikipedia to be used as a platform for "his" hatred. The second reason has to do with "his" identity. I know that bios are done on everone, good or evil. But no one knows who this "man" is. He could be one person, he could be an entire hate group. Wikipedia can not rely on this idiot's words for its main source. By the way Kwnl I wonder if the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment realizes that this bigot(s) main, and stated, purpose is to eliminate all muslims from off the face of the Earth.م 06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Calling Ali Sina a "racist", a bigot" and whatever else without substantiation only reveals your motivation more clearly. This is not the place to debate his views, nor the place to enforce your personal opinion of them.
rudra 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- He is a bigot, but I think that it is important that bigots be exposed. 129.234.4.10 17:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Calling Ali Sina a "racist", a bigot" and whatever else without substantiation only reveals your motivation more clearly. This is not the place to debate his views, nor the place to enforce your personal opinion of them.
rudra 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rudra, I'm just not very computer-literate, I thought I did sign my comment if not my user name is (م). My intention is not to censor anyone. My objection to this racist's entry are basic. First, I don't know how popular this "guy" is, but the first time I heard about him was on wikipedia. His name was constantly thrown around by someone on the Islam discussion board. That user has since been blocked for his racist/hatefilled/islamphobic comments (Gren I think you know who I am reffering to ;). Hence, I do not want wikipedia to be used as a platform for "his" hatred. The second reason has to do with "his" identity. I know that bios are done on everone, good or evil. But no one knows who this "man" is. He could be one person, he could be an entire hate group. Wikipedia can not rely on this idiot's words for its main source. By the way Kwnl I wonder if the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment realizes that this bigot(s) main, and stated, purpose is to eliminate all muslims from off the face of the Earth.م 06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete
- Keep There is enough interest on this subject to be included. There is no reason why the content cannot be improved to be impartial. However, there's evidence of 'conflict of interest' by certain editors.
- Keep Ali Sina has debted with very notable Islamic scholars, and has quite a large fanbase. He has also attracted a lot of attention from many well-known Islamic representitves, including Zakir Naik. He's certainly influential enough to have his own page, no doubt about that.
- "Strong Keep" Everybody is entitled to have their own views, we might agree or disagree, but disagreement is not the basis for deletion. It is censorship.
- Red herring. The issue here is not whether this anonymous bigot has a right to say what it says, but whether this particular anonymous bigot is sufficiently important or notable to merit inclusion in a general encyclopaedia, per (for example) the
guidelines on biographies of living people. Since we don't even have a name, that's kind of hard to defend in this case. Other guidelines indicate
what qualifies as encyclopaedic in websites, and here, too, there is an apparent shortfall. Painting this as a freedom of speech issue is a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is - or rather what it
is not, namely a soapbox. -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD? 16:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Your personal opinion that this person is a "bigot" does not make him any more or less notable.--
Pecher 09:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's not just my personal opinion, but let that pass. If this was a known, credible person, or if the column were sindicated in
reliable sources I'd have no problemwith it. But we don't know who "Ali Sina" is; all we know is that there is a website (which appears to me to fail
WP:WEB, but that is debatable since there is some evidence of external coverage). Since "Ali Sina" is not known to be a real person, this is really covering the website (really more of a blog) not the person. I don't think either the website or the fake "Ali Sina" persona is notable. There is precious little which can be
verified from
reliable sources. There is, after all, no world shortage of
bigotsopinionated cowards (if you prefer), we don't need to cover them all just for fear of offending some islamophobes. Many of the arguments here (not yours) seem to be based on "X has no right to say this" or "we may not prevent X from saying this" - that's a diversion. This is not about the opinions or their merit, it's about the article and its subject. In my opinion this bigot is no different from all the other bigots pouring out hate speech on the Internet. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C]
AfD? 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's not just my personal opinion, but let that pass. If this was a known, credible person, or if the column were sindicated in
reliable sources I'd have no problemwith it. But we don't know who "Ali Sina" is; all we know is that there is a website (which appears to me to fail
WP:WEB, but that is debatable since there is some evidence of external coverage). Since "Ali Sina" is not known to be a real person, this is really covering the website (really more of a blog) not the person. I don't think either the website or the fake "Ali Sina" persona is notable. There is precious little which can be
verified from
reliable sources. There is, after all, no world shortage of
- Red herring. The issue here is not whether this anonymous bigot has a right to say what it says, but whether this particular anonymous bigot is sufficiently important or notable to merit inclusion in a general encyclopaedia, per (for example) the
guidelines on biographies of living people. Since we don't even have a name, that's kind of hard to defend in this case. Other guidelines indicate
what qualifies as encyclopaedic in websites, and here, too, there is an apparent shortfall. Painting this as a freedom of speech issue is a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is - or rather what it
is not, namely a soapbox. -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
- strongly delete
- Keep. Clearly a notable person.-- Pecher 20:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) User's second vote
- Really? What's the notable person's name then? -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD? 22:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's not relevant to the issue of notability.-- Pecher 09:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Really? What's the notable person's name then? -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[ talk] 04:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Nicholas Langman
Wikipedia is not a news report. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not delete this entry - it is important that this name be made public because the British authorities are trying to conceal it.
- Weak Keep if more information can be added, otherwise delete. - FrancisTyers 13:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since then, more info has been added to this entry. -- Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I can find the mention that the newspaper in question published a name, but not any information that this actually is his name. If someone can verify it, change to keep. - Bobet 13:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since then, this person's identity has been verified. -- Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking reliable sources. Very few links, some to absurd Diana conspiracies (why do people have such a hard time believing that a drunk driver crashed? It happens every day!) Remember, people, There Is No Cabal! Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 14:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I still don't see it. There should probably be an article on the kidnappings, but not on one person stated to have been there at the time. Do we have other articles for bystandeers? -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD? 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't see it. There should probably be an article on the kidnappings, but not on one person stated to have been there at the time. Do we have other articles for bystandeers? -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
- Delete By all means have an article on the purported kidnappings. But by the nature of the supposed D-Notice it seems impossible to link these to Nicholas Langman Dlyons493 Talk 14:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since then... see above. -- Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since then... see above. -- Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Here is the Greek newspaper article published on 25 December 2005 Stavros-Athens
http://cryptome.org/br-gr-spies.htm
- Weak Keep Other Greek press report the same name these days, see for example from Ta Nea http://ta-nea.dolnet.gr/print_article.php?e=A&f=18426&m=N09&aa=1 as to the person's name, and some image of a memo from the same article, http://ta-nea.dolnet.gr/print_article.php?e=A&f=18426&m=N09&aa=1, shows the original English spelling of the name. I agree additional information beyond the name should be included to keep this article. ArielGlenn 23:40 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Langman has been named in a national British newspaper ( The Morning Star), one of the rare occasions where a British media organisation defies the D-Notice system and admits to having done so. He is also reportedly the subject of a criminal complaint in Greece and the complainant intends to seek his extradition. Rugxulo 15:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as an article, but add in additional information about him and NPOV the allegations. -- Vodex 00:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Serious allegations against him related to an important event, the July 7 London bombings, very little other information about him available Chaikney 19:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep British newspapers have now named him, in defiance of the D-Notice Stavros-athens 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --
Ichiro 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep now that he has appeared in the press. The issue of information obtained by torture/maltreatment in the GWOT is highly notable. -- Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Too much evidence to remove. Story is not false. Verified in English Media. As shown in links on page.
- Comment The incident is clearly notable but personally I've yet seen nothing that links this persons name to it. None of the article links appear to and I don't see it in ArielGlenn link either. Could someone spell it out for me please? Dlyons493 Talk 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but it should also be wikified in a better way, shouldn't it?!? -- Angelo 00:59, 8 January 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 kill everyone involved in writing the article. DS 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
NTHTLVA
Unverifiable [38] [39], probably an hoax. - Liberatore( T) 16:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 16:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - As said above - nonverifiable. Also contradicts itself (why would the people be vegan and not care for animals?) Finally it uses a slang term (tree huggers) which the environmentalist movement would not likely use itself. - localzuk 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete hoax if they actually supported human genocide they would be to busy killing people, along with themselves presumably, to write a wikipedia article. -- Pboyd04 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Complete nonsense. - Bootstoots 19:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable, hoax -- Quarl 21:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete.
Nonsense belong in here.
Soothing
R 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if real, not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antaeus Feldspar ( talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Out of all the votes cast here, the ones that were actually valid were 10 DELETE votes and 3 KEEP votes, two of them being marginal as Jhyancey and Patentgeek have only edited articles related to this discussion. There were 3 subsequent keep votes (one as NO REDIRECT) signed by Jhyancey, those were discarded. All IP address votes were discarded. Before anyone cries foul, that includes the IP that voted delete.
Patent jock
 | 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}}. |
Neologism or hoax, i.e. patent joke... Google doesn't show any evidence of widespread use. I have the strong feeling that this is a gross hoax. The result of the previous vote was "no consensus". Please do revise your opinion. The burden should be on the author of the article to prove notability. -- Edcolins 16:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. -- Edcolins 16:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the only use I could find was patentjock.com -- Pboyd04 16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete search engine results conclude this article is non-notable. Ajwebb 18:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- DO NOT Delete Patent Jock is a real term, and is not a "gross hoax" as asserted by Edcolins. Indeed, I first learned of this term while studying law several years ago. Please also see previous deletion attempt for evidence of usage. As for notability, please re-read this page and note that "widespread usage" is not required for so-called notability. For example, I know nothing about "Action Directe", but it received a wiki entry (See: Edcolins). This means that just because one does not know about a wiki entry that it should be slated for deletion. As for the results of a internet search, this means nothing. Just because the results of an internet search engine does not produce a plethora of results, does not mean the term is not well-known. It just means that google does not list a page using this term. Also, no "burden" is required under wiki deletion policy and if one is required, it was satisfied in previous deletion attempt. Jhyancey 19:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)]]
- Delete Never heard of such a term. Jurisnipper
- Keep it already survived one AfD vote what the hecks it doing back here?! Surely we should be concentrating on new stuff not just rehacking old ground? Unless this is an attempt by the deletionists to get there way by throwing it back here ad nauseum till they finally get it deleted........not that I would suggest such a thing..."G"... Jcuk 21:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do NOT Delete Never heard of such a term? How many of you have heard of omphaloskepsis (meditation while gazing at one's navel), gamp (a large umbrella), ferruminate (to unite; solder), effulgent (shining brightly), pelmatogram (a footprint), jentacular (pertaining to breakfast), ecophobia (fear of home), ultrafidian (ultracredulous; extremely gullible), karimption (a crown, a mass), or savate (fighting with the feet). I guess if we delete this term, then we should delete many other words and phrases that people have "never heard of" from older dictionaries and encyclopedias. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of us are omniscient enough to know everything about everything. We should be asking patent agents and patent attorneys whether they have heard or use the term, not whether Joe Schmoe off the street has heard of the term. --
Jfredericks 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I take the view that
Jfredericks is likely to be a
sock puppet (
contribution
s) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account.-- Edcolins 07:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I take the view that
Jfredericks is likely to be a
sock puppet (
contribution
- Delete as non-notable unverifiable recent neologism, hoax. We're not saying "I never heard of it"; we're saying "we can't find evidence that anybody ever heard of it". -- Quarl 21:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete Well, if all you are saying is "we can't find evidence that anybody ever heard of it," then you haven't read the prior discussion where Jhyancey and Patentgeek (providing a couple of sites) indicated that they know that the term is used. Or are they (and the sources they site) considered nobody?
-- Somebody 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.237.72 ( talk • contribs)- You are right, I don't consider meat puppets and sock puppets as reliable sources. I did check the websites cited as a sources; patentjock.com has no content. --
Quarl 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- And the other link to Baker Botts LLP, one of the more prestigious law firms in the country, carries no weight? Ouch! Hope Jhyancey and Patentgeek don't mind being characterized as puppets... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.196.237.72 (
talk •
contribs)
- It mentions the phrase in passing but there's no way to tell what it means. So the phrase is still unverifiable. P.S. there's no need to create multiple accounts to create the illusion of wide support -- such votes don't count. Almost by definition, anybody who has no prior contributions and suddenly starts supporting another user on an AFD is a meat or sock puppet. See
WP:SOCK. --
Quarl 23:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, now we lower ourselves to accusations. I am the same person who has posted the last two "anonymous or unsigned" entries, as I have not created an account on wiki. Of course, by your name, perhaps that's what you do best... Sorry, but the irony in creating a new and 'unverifiable' term called "sockpuppets" for those who post under different names or "jump in" on deletion wars is quite laughable.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.196.237.72 (
talk •
contribs)
- Even if you don't have a user account or choose not to use it, you should sign your comments. If you are implying that becuase my name is superficially similar to the English word "quarrel" that I am quarrelsome, please read
Wikipedia:Civility and
Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --
Quarl 23:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The administrators who make decisions on deleting articles know very well what
sock puppetry means, so there's no need to accuse me of inventing the term. Indeed this page full of sock puppetry is laughable. --
Quarl 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- My apologies, I wasn't accusing you of inventing the term... its just funny that a potentially created and unverifiable term has made it onto wikipedia, while the phrase in question is under attack as being unverifiable.-- 24.196.237.72 23:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The administrators who make decisions on deleting articles know very well what
sock puppetry means, so there's no need to accuse me of inventing the term. Indeed this page full of sock puppetry is laughable. --
Quarl 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Even if you don't have a user account or choose not to use it, you should sign your comments. If you are implying that becuase my name is superficially similar to the English word "quarrel" that I am quarrelsome, please read
Wikipedia:Civility and
Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --
Quarl 23:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, now we lower ourselves to accusations. I am the same person who has posted the last two "anonymous or unsigned" entries, as I have not created an account on wiki. Of course, by your name, perhaps that's what you do best... Sorry, but the irony in creating a new and 'unverifiable' term called "sockpuppets" for those who post under different names or "jump in" on deletion wars is quite laughable.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.196.237.72 (
talk •
contribs)
- It mentions the phrase in passing but there's no way to tell what it means. So the phrase is still unverifiable. P.S. there's no need to create multiple accounts to create the illusion of wide support -- such votes don't count. Almost by definition, anybody who has no prior contributions and suddenly starts supporting another user on an AFD is a meat or sock puppet. See
WP:SOCK. --
Quarl 23:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- And the other link to Baker Botts LLP, one of the more prestigious law firms in the country, carries no weight? Ouch! Hope Jhyancey and Patentgeek don't mind being characterized as puppets... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.196.237.72 (
talk •
contribs)
- I take the view that
24.196.237.72's vote is likely to be a
sock puppet (
contribution
s) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account. -- Edcolins 07:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are right, I don't consider meat puppets and sock puppets as reliable sources. I did check the websites cited as a sources; patentjock.com has no content. --
Quarl 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking evidence of importance, but having abundant evidence of sockpuppetry. Note to anons: sosckpuppetry is a great way to ensure deletion, keep it up. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep but clean out the POV stuff ("rare skill and extraordinary intellect" "most Patent Jocks are formally trained and some Patent Jocks study at the Franklin Pierce Law Center"--sheesh). rodii 23:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Changing vote, see below.- KEEP NO SOCK PUPPET HERE--What is the goal and purpose of wiki? As a regular wiki reader and user, I think one of wiki's main purposes is providing information to increase knowledge of all. This is exactly what the Patent Jock entry does. How many of you before reading the Patent Jock entry had any knowledge about this subject matter. While the term is well-known in patent attorney circles, this entry conveys this information to all of wiki land. On another, as the main contributor for Patent Jock, I have solicited any assistance from sock puppets, nor have I engaged in that practice. For all of you urging deletion on this article, please see previous post and in particular read the baker botts cited article. (See it here:
http://www.bakerbotts.com/9/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=98609148-a306-4faa-8b42-1f0e376f15d0)
Jhyancey 23:34, 29 December 2005 UTC
- That page (as I explained to the other puppet) doesn't provide enough context to verify anything about the phrase 'patent jock'. If I were to guess I would say you got lucky that some law firm's website happened to have that phrase indexed by Google. Another idea is you have a conflict of interest in having your phrase be "more official" since the registration of patentjock.com on 2004-06-22. Even if it weren't a hoax, it is non-notable; we don't need "copyright jock" and "trademark jock" and "intellectual property jock" and "divorce jock" -- Quarl 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The vote signed by Jhyancey is a contribution by User:69.25.80.1 [41], which is likely to be bad faith sock puppetry (given the comment "NO SOCK PUPPET HERE" and the previous vote signed by Jhyancey above). Should not be taken into account. -- Edcolins 08:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
KeepI voted "weak keep" last time with the reasoning that this term might be so specialized that traditional sources may not be good enough. There was a link to a law web site in the previous AfD discussion I remember. howch e ng { chat} 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)- It's the very same hyperlink as is given immediately above. Have you read what is being cited as a source here? It is a news report about various court cases that mentions "patent jocks" and "copyright folks" in the same breath. Would you have an article on "copyright folk" on the basis of it? That article is using the word jock as a colloquialism. It is no evidence whatsoever that there is such a concept as a "patent jock", and gives the clear impression that nothing other than patent attorney is meant. Uncle G 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to patent attorney per rodii. howch e ng { chat} 06:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article cites no sources. I, like two of the editors in the original AFD discussion, can find no sources. The article's author, when asked for sources, points to a news report that uses jock colloquially, and that provides nothing whatsoever to support any part of this article; and to an empty web site that appears to be a site for a patent attorney to advertise xyr services under the trade name of "Patent Jock" (notice "Our Rates"). Given that, and the promotional tone of the article, it seems that this article's purpose is to mis-use Wikipedia as an advertising platform for a patent attorney who styles himself a "patent jock". The article is unverifiable, original research, and an apparent advertisement. Delete. Uncle G 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep While the discussion has been interesting, puppets aside, I repeat my earlier posting that I am familiar with this term. I don't know about the rest of the wikipedia users, but I believe the strength of wikipedia is to provide everyone with descriptions of terms that are not only common, but also those that may be somewhat rare and used in certain circles. Otherwise, this tool is useless and fails. I may not be familiar with what terms an astronaut or garbage man uses, but I do know patents. I have worked in Boston, Atlanta, Los Angeles and New York. In each of these locations I have heard patent practitioners use this term in same fashion as the description provides. Just because a websearch provides minimal sources should only be A factor in deciding if this term is a neologism. Baker Botts is a reputable and well-known patent powerhouse, and they used this term in 2002. And I find that just because the author failed to define the term "patent jock" in his article to be a ridiculous argument. One skilled in the art, ahhm...a patent jock, understands this use usage as should a lay reader. I find jyancey to be on point, as is Jfredericks. Do not delete.--
Patentgeek 01:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Personal testimony of pseudonymous Wikipedia editors is not enough. We require sources here. So far you have not only not provided any but also now stated that you find it "ridiculous" that they should be required. If you don't share our principles of verifiability, then you will find another web site elsewhere a better fit to your needs. You could try putting some content on that empty one that I mentioned above. Uncle G 02:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I take the view that Patentgeek may be a sock puppet ( contributions) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account.-- Edcolins 07:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- WEAK KEEP - I know this doesn't actually verify the definition of patent jock, but it DOES show that it is used within the industry. See
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/11/what_five_thing.html, where Dennis Crouch (one of the "notable" patent attorneys listed in the wikipedia listing of "
patent attorney") uses the term patent jockey.--
24.196.237.72 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I take the view that 24.196.237.72 may be a sock puppet ( contributions) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account.-- Edcolins 07:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Changing my vote after reading here and thinking a bit. I believe "patent jock(ey)" is a real term, but don't think it's worthy of inclusion here. What distinguishes "patent jock" from garden variety Patent attorney? I think it's just the term, not the concept, and while that may be of interest to Wiktionary, it's not relevant here. An encyclopedia needs to provide information on concepts. Someone might, I grant, occasionally search this place for patent jock... So: Redirect to patent attorney. rodii 03:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to patent attorney I support Rodii’s suggestion of a redirect to Patent Agent/Attorney. “Patent Jock”, as defined in the article, appears to be a skilled patent agent/attorney. For example:
- By definition, all patent attorneys/agents are registered with a patent granting body, such as the US patent office.
- Patent attorneys/agents are skilled at getting their clients patents. Some are certainly more skilled that others. Very skilled ones receive promotions in corporations, make partner in law firms, or have successful solo practices.
- Patent attorneys/agents can generally recite portions of patent law from memory.
- Patent attorneys/agents have historically been in high demand by both government and private industry.
- Patent attorney/agents come from diverse backgrounds. Most learn their skills from working under the guidance of more senior practitioners. Most also take formal training courses, such as those provided by the Franklin Pierce Law Center.
- Patent attorneys/agents work with their clients to distill the essential features of an invention and draft claims accordingly to build a strong patent portfolio that meets their clients' business needs.
- Many registered patent attorneys are also accomplished patent litigators.-- Nowa 04:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
KEEP NO SOCK PUPPET HERE--What is the goal and purpose of wiki? As a regular wiki reader and user, I think one of wiki's main purposes is providing information to increase knowledge of all. This is exactly what the Patent Jock entry does. How many of you before reading the Patent Jock entry had any knowledge about this subject matter. While the term is well-known in patent attorney circles, this entry conveys this information to all of wiki land. On another, as the main contributor for Patent Jock, I have solicited any assistance from sock puppets, nor have I engaged in that practice. For all of you urging deletion on this article, please see previous post and in particular read the baker botts cited article. (See it here: http://www.bakerbotts.com/9/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=98609148-a306-4faa-8b42-1f0e376f15d0) Jhyancey 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reference to the Baker Botts article and also I thank you for the initial effort you put in composing this article. As someone who has had his own articles marked for deletion, I understand the initial anger of having your efforts tagged as perhaps being “not worthy” of inclusion in Wikipedia. It appears to me that you’ve put a good faith effort into this article in an attempt to make Wikipedia more useful to the general public.
- That’s one of the reasons I’m recommending that “patent jock” be a redirect to patent attorney. At least according to the Baker Botts article, it is a term that’s used as slang for at least patent attorney/agent or perhaps any other person with an interest in patents.
- The article, for example, states:
- While the nation’s patent jocks eagerly await the Court’s decision in Festo, the copyright folks can start clearing space on their fall calendars for Eldred v. Ashcroft (01-618)…
- It appears that “patent jocks” is used as slang for patent attorneys/agents just as “copyright folks” is used as slang for attorneys specializing in copyright law.
- Do you have any objection to a redirect? -- Nowa 14:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- NO REDIRECT You "deletionists" just do not understand. I will re-post patent jock again in the future after preparing additional support to satisfy the desire and craving to remove from wiki a useful entry. For those of you supporting Keep and Redirect, thank you very much, but please take note that only a select few patent attorneys ever make it too Patent Jock status. It is not a slang term, rather it is the highest level of competency all patent attorneys strive for. I will keep entry alive in my sandbox for those who wish to contribute to this useful entry. Jhyancey 15:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)]
- And you really think that helps your case? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 15:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- This looks like a bit of self-promotion to me. What's so special about a third-tier law school [42] like the Franklin Pierce Law Center except that Jhyancey graduated from there? ( [43]) Why is it so important to establish Patent jock as a separate term when one sentence in the Patent attorney article would suffice? I'm sorry, counselor, but you just haven't made the case that your term is really that notable or distinguishable from other classes of patent attorneys; all you've done so far is (increasingly heatedly) assert that. (I'm not a deletionist, by the way. I started out voting keep, but you have actually persuaded me the other way.) rodii 16:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I will keep entry alive in my sandbox for those who wish to contribute to this useful entry. Jhyancey, I think that would be a good idea. -- Nowa 18:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yo "Just zis", the wiki cause should not be about winning or losing and fighting over entries. If the "deletionists" do not take the time to understand the term and assert it's a "gross hoax" then so be it. The purpose of the entry was to edify you and every other wiki user about Patent Jocks. Have you ever heard of Judge Giles Rich, P.F. Federico, Herbert Schwartz, The Telephone Cases, or Doctrine of Equivalents? Patent Jocks know much about these terms. Thus, the purpose of this entry. Jhyancey 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - No Redirect I'm changing my vote slightly to "Delete - No Redirect". I maintain "delete" since I've not seen a preponderance of evidence to indicate that "patent jock" is either a formal or informal designation that is commonly aspired to by registered US patent agents or attorneys or the patent agents or attorneys of any other jurdisdiction. I change my vote from redirect to "no redirect" in respect for the original author's assertion that "patent jock" is not slang for patent attorney. -- Nowa 18:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I also was temporarily inclined to change my vote to "Redirect" since it appeared patent jock(ey) might be slang for patent attorney. We delete articles as "non-notable neologism" every day which are far more verifiable and less vanity than this. I maintain my Delete vote and recommend the author of the article copy it to his user page until he can build a credible case for the phrase. If the author is a lawyer, or knows lawyers, it should be easy to build a credible case and survive AFD next time. — Quarl ( talk) 2005-12-31 00:10 Z
- Delete This lengthy discussion has provoked far more heat than light, but it seems clear to me that even if the phrase is used, it is not of sufficient currency to merit its own article, and in the single case presented as evidence of its existence, it could be an on-the-spot invention by newswriters. And there are enough sockpuppets here to fill a locker room. D e nni ☯ 04:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak/Delete This wiki term is less about patents and more about the term "jock." I'm a patent attorney, and I have heard the term used in conversation, but only in the same way one would call a Washington staffer a "policy wonk," i.e., someone who's really into a particular intellectual subject, and measures his prowess according to their knowledge in that field. List under "jock"? -- Phlaemenbicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.231.134 ( talk • contribs)
- No vote This link was posted to a patent law board, presumably to draw support for the article. However, patent attorneys are generally too smart to bother with such things as the foolishness that is the wikipedia community. Baseless accusations of being socks is second only to baseless accusations of POV. Baseless accusations of being a hoax is a new one to me, but I gave up on this place a long, long time ago. Patent attorneys have both law degrees and technical degrees. As such, they tend to adopt techie terms -- such as "jock" (see the jargon file. That being said, the article, in its current form, is crap. Mentioning Franklin Pierce is pure self-promotion as it isn't even one of the top three, as reported by U.S. News & World Report. Not all patent attorneys are jocks, only the ones who (1) know caselaw in and out, (2) have a huge patent grant rate, and (3) deal primarily in patent preparation. I have never heard the term applied to a litigator, as stated in the article. Patent prosecuters (of which I am one) are geeks and patent jocks are the geekiest of the geeks. But what do I know, I'm merely a POV sock perpetrating a hoax. 71.129.147.6 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- how long must this go on? lets get on with it and delete it, must we waste any more time and resources on this useless entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.104.28 ( talk • contribs)
- this article sucks, doesn't it? even Donald Chisum would vote against this, but who is Just Giz, and what does he/she do during free time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.70.190 ( talk • contribs)
- Delete, or at most redirect... seems slang, and from the debate I've not seen a single source for this thing. -- Raistlin 23:35, 5 January 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 (part of a group of mutually-referential non-notable entities...) -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
2002: The Year we 'Came Back'
Either a hoax, or so far in the future as to be non-encyclopaedic -- SGBailey 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- SGBailey 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn WP:Not a crystal ball -- Pboyd04 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as above, WP isn't a catalogue of future events. --
(aeropagitica)
00:12, 30 December 2005 (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 05:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Bigmouthmedia
Article on obscure internet marketing company void of encyclopedic value which reads as an official site and shamefull spam. Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine nor Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider Mecanismo | Talk 10:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Josh Parris # : 12:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Company has won numerous awards and has been covered in the press. -- JJay 22:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howch e ng { chat} 21:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete alexa rank of 63,994 for their website most of the listings on google appear to be business listing sites. -- Pboyd04 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advert. David | Talk 22:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete article reads as promotional copy that I would expect to find on their website, not in an encyclopædia article. --
(aeropagitica)
00:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Delete, although it may have won several prices (one stated in a notable site), it fails WP:CORP. -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 30 December 2005 (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 after 2 weeks of voting -- Ichiro 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Expressed emotion
Dicdef. Delete. Parallel or Together ? 13:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, can become more than a dicdef. Or merge to emotional expression. Aapo Laitinen 14:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howch e ng { chat} 21:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I can't see this being more than a dicdef. -- Pboyd04 22:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Contextualise This article needs to be placed in context; there are no categories with which I can relate the topic to an appropriate academic discipline. More depth and detail with literature citations is required for this to be an enclyclopædia article. --
(aeropagitica)
00:21, 30 December 2005 (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 redirect -- Ichiro 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Biological phenomenon
I think this article should redirect to biology, but there is some debate on its talk page so I have put it up for deletion discussion. — Brim 14:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect works for me. Delete otherwise. Topic is already covered better on life. — RJH 16:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I feel something under this heading must appear somewhere, may be under
biology. However I do not agree that the topic is adequately covered under
life. —
Charlie 08:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC).
- I said better, not adequately. :-P — RJH
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howch e ng { chat} 21:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect This page adds nothing to the understanding of life or biological systems. Redirect it to one or other of the pages where WP users can read a more comprehensive overview of the subject. --
(aeropagitica)
00:30, 30 December 2005 (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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Gourmet Guy
Idiosyncratic non-topic AppleSeed 15:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Josh Parris # : 00:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howch e ng { chat} 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Paper Mario. -- JJay 22:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the language is colloquial and the subject can be covered in
Paper Mario. --
(aeropagitica)
00:32, 30 December 2005 (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 -- Ichiro 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Dangerous Dreams
Doesn't follow the requirements for bands. Jporcaro 17:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Josh Parris # : 00:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:MUSIC -- one sentence does not an article make -- recording on nn label doesn't enhance notability to the needed level for inclusion here. B.Wind 15:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The band meets WP:MUSIC - from having gone on tour - so their album isn't eligible for deletion imo. Stifle 21:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howch e ng { chat} 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Stifle. -- JJay 22:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, or nom the band for deletion too. -- SarekOfVulcan 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, either delete the band and their EP page too or keep the whole lot. It can all be expanded upon by a knowledgable party. --
(aeropagitica)
00:35, 30 December 2005 (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 concensus -- Ichiro 19:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Brigance
Sounds like an advert Compu ter Joe 19:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Undecided - Possibly a notable researcher in his field, but it needs to moved, cleaned up and sourced. It got kept awhile back on an AfD but the article has not had a single non-vandalous edit since then. Like everything else, it just sits there. FCYTravis 22:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howch e ng { chat} 21:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason given to delete- please add link to previous AfD. -- JJay 22:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment There's a confusion here between the man and his system. Article at least needs renaming. Previous Afd is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigance
Dlyons493 Talk 22:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename and expand upon system in order to differentiate from the creator. --
(aeropagitica)
00:38, 30 December 2005 (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. Mo0[ talk] 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Frank Ochieng
Seems to be squeaking on the border of notability, though more on the side of non-notability. His official site has no Alexa Rank, and a Google PageRank of 4/10. -- D e ath phoenix 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Can't anyone be an online film critic? Delete unless someone makes a case for this. -- JJay 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No Alexa rank = no notability for his website, around which all his "fame" must circulate, by definition.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 23:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of evidence that anyone but Ochieng cares what Ochieng things about anything. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 23:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Very weak keep. Seems to be pretty prominent, or at least prolific, as a movie reviewer -- I get 40,000 google hits, and see for example this page, where he's one of three reviewers listed (on the other hand, that site doesn't appear to be well known). bikeable (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- NPOV The language used appears to talk Frank up. There is no reason for a film critic not be mentioned in WP but their contribution to film criticism should be mentioned, not just their presence on panels, committees, etc. The substance of his criticism is of note. If there is nothing distinctive about his opinions to justify an article, delete. --
(aeropagitica)
00:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Qualified Ochieng's appearances on WBZ radio have proved popular over the years. He has met the qualifications to be part of Rotten Tomatoes, MovieEye, SF Crowsnest, etc. Frank's reviews are witty and informative, and he's well-respected amongst
other film critics. As someone who has interviewed him numerous times on my own radio show (WMWM Salem MA), I can testify his knowledge and insights on film and television media do qualify him for WP inclusion. (raccoonradio)
- Qualified Frank Ochieng in my opinion deserves to be part of Wikipedia. He has been a major contributor to many on-line, and various print publications over the years as expressed (above). I have been reading Mr. Ochieng's work over many years and there are few writers like him in-depth, informative, and more than qualified to be part of your site.
I can also say this as well because of his numerous appearances on my TV interview program 'A Time To Review' on Brookline Access Television. He is a great writer and he has proven this because I have worked with him personally (The Voicemakers). Daniel Berman, Newton Magazine
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge -- Ichiro 19:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Henry L. Valance
While Morgan was notable, I can't see that this article can ever be made encyclopedic. There was no body recovered (the body that was recovered was identified as someone else), this confession was 20-30 years after the fact, and wasn't published for another 20 years after that? DeleteMerge.
SarekOfVulcan 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Very interesting info. Should be Merged and Redirected to
William Morgan (anti-Mason). --
JJay 22:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- If the info can be substantiated beyond this single reference, I could go along with that.-- SarekOfVulcan 22:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Could you be a bit more specific about what you are contesting? I'm not sure I follow you. --
JJay 00:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The book reporting the deathbed confession wasn't published for 20 years after the confession, if I'm following everything correctly. If it had been more widely reported, I'd feel better about leaving it in. Am I making sense yet?--
SarekOfVulcan 01:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, the confession was published shortly after Valance's death in 1848.
[56]. It has since become part of the case, discussed in later pamphlets, newspapers and every book on Morgan that I checked. It is part of the historical record surrounding the Morgan case and can not be ignored. Of course, that does not mean that the confession was true and/or even took place. That is a completely different problem. But Valance should be mentioned on the Morgan page --
JJay 01:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- That removes one of my main objections: changing from Delete to Merge. Thanks for doing the extra legwork. -- SarekOfVulcan 01:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. I can do a basic merge after the AfD, if no one does it first. -- JJay 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, the confession was published shortly after Valance's death in 1848.
[56]. It has since become part of the case, discussed in later pamphlets, newspapers and every book on Morgan that I checked. It is part of the historical record surrounding the Morgan case and can not be ignored. Of course, that does not mean that the confession was true and/or even took place. That is a completely different problem. But Valance should be mentioned on the Morgan page --
JJay 01:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The book reporting the deathbed confession wasn't published for 20 years after the confession, if I'm following everything correctly. If it had been more widely reported, I'd feel better about leaving it in. Am I making sense yet?--
SarekOfVulcan 01:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have tidied the page up a little, as it seemed to have a pretty strong anti mason bias. Having said that, I'm not gonna vote cos I know nothing about the case, and therefor can't comment on it.
Jcuk 00:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, nobody knows anything else about it, and that's why I'm AfDing it. -- SarekOfVulcan 00:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge If Valance had a life of note it may be worth keeping a page about him. If his only noteworthy act was a deathbed confession, merge the page with that of the life of the person whom he claims to have killed. --
(aeropagitica)
00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or merge Clearly not noteworthy, and the facts of the Morgan case have never conclusively come to light. Having done some research, there isn't even a real consensus on what happened in the first place. MSJapan 05:20, 31 December 2005 (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. — JIP | Talk 07:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The Voicemakers
This was originally nominated for a speedy. Another creation of Frank Ochieng, this fanzine is definitely not notable. -- D e ath phoenix 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete not a notable publication. --
(aeropagitica)
00:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --
Ichiro 19:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nomination FredOrAlive 00:49, 8 January 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 -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 21:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Jane Alderman
Either a hoax or relating to a book to be published so far in the future as to be non-encyclopaedic. Part of a series of articles added by Janet6 ( talk · contribs). -- Stephen Deken 21:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete (If the book gets published, include a line about this character in the book's entry) -- SGBailey 22:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn WP:Not a crystal ball -- Pboyd04 22:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this doesn't appear to be a notable biographical entry. --
(aeropagitica)
00:48, 30 December 2005 (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 Redirect' to Singularity_(operating_system). - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft_Singularity
this article is a clone of "Singularity_(operating_system)" Dsda 22:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Singularity_(operating_system) no need to merge since there is no new content. -- Pboyd04 22:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per above.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per Pboyd04. -- ReyBrujo 03:28, 30 December 2005 (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 -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Duders.com
Was tagged for speedy for being an attack page, but that clearly does not apply. However, with 96 users, fails WP:WEB in a big way. howch e ng { chat} 22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete was about to make the afd myself. WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete "greatest webpage on planet earth" if only he hadn't said that this could be speedied. -- Pboyd04 22:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. We ought to have websites covered under CSD A7 as well. --
Soothing
R 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete fails to assert criteria for being the greatest website on earth. Endomion 23:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the article appears to be a troll. None of its claims are substantiated. The language is partisan instead of neutral. --
(aeropagitica)
00:53, 30 December 2005 (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 merge to Reykjavík, then redirect. Mind matrix 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Nightlife in Reykjavík
Article is very unencyclopedic.
Wikipedia is not a travel guide.
Soothing
R 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Reykjavík. - FrancisTyers 22:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per above -- Revolución ( talk) 00:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge the page can become a section of the main article on Reykjavik. --
(aeropagitica)
00:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into the main article for Reykjavík - ( Erebus555 13:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC))
- Why would you want it deleted? I'm glad someone wrote it. Merge it into the main Reykjavik page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.220.190 ( talk • contribs)
- Article should be a subsection of Reykjavík. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.51.178 ( talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn after re-write. Mind matrix 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Neck crank
The term "crank" is not sufficiently developed in the context in which this is used and is currently address in Hold (grappling) Rorybowman 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This concept is discussed in a more thorough manner in the wrestling and martial arts sections. --
(aeropagitica)
01:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per Rorybowman and (aeropagitica) -- Quarl 01:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I can write an article about neck cranks(neck locks). Probably 2-3 paragraphs with a picture. I've got a a link to a study about torsional pressure applied to the neck and spine. -- -Marcus- 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Finished I've written a short article about this subject. I won't remove the "nominated for deletion notice", until someone endorses my writing. -- -Marcus- 12:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP: I am the one who originally suggested the delete, but this article addresses my original concern. New article is substantive and about as precise as the subject and current usage allows. Rorybowman 16:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notable, well-known technique. Article as been improved. Shawnc 03:24, 2 January 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. DS 13:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Myrix
A fictional world, but one not known by Google. A search for Myrix reveals no relevant results, and searching for the word in conjunction with "chaos theory" or "butterfly effect" gets zippo. Unverifiable. howch e ng { chat} 23:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. "Myrix is also the setting for the as-of-yet unnamed book series featuring Cyick T. Jerical. After six years, only the prequal story, Wait For It has a completed rough draft, but hopefully more will follow soon." Author removed my CSD tag, but what the heck, AfD is more definitive. bikeable (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The page is worthless without a published book that can be used as a citation. It reads as nothing more than the authors' attempt at ego-massage. --
(aeropagitica)
01:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Otherwise, I have a story to tell about the fantasy kingdom of Myownlandia. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 21:47, 30 December 2005 (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 05:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Cold weapon
Unusual term not in general use. Single circular reference to brass knuckles. Rorybowman 23:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete google search just reveals fictional weapons and basically weapons that are cold, not the way the term is used here. If someone can demonstrate this is real then it should be transwikied to wiktionary. -- Pboyd04 23:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, unverifiable. -- Quarl 01:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't appear to be a recognised term in Google or EB. If a literary citation can be supplied, suggest turning page in to Redirect. --
(aeropagitica)
01:12, 30 December 2005 (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.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The Solomon Key
This is soothsaying, speculation, maybe even "original research", but not an encyclopedic article with actual facts. Please come again when the book has actually been released or any actual facts can be reported. zerofoks 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The book is a real matter, and yes speculation is involved as the book is not released, however there is information on this page we can confirm. we know the book is about the founding fathers of our country, in which it is confirmed many were active freemasons. why should speculation not count as information. there is much speculation over many things. speculation breeds thought, thought breeds knowledge. The announcement should be made, and this page should be kept for those who until then, are interested in hearing the possability of this book. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 12.73.12.105 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep It is very stupid to delete this. It is very interesting and is helpful for people who want to know what Dan Brown is up to. Whoever wants to delete this entry is wasting their time. Peace out. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.46.155.141 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep No need to delete the article, speculation can be removed, and actual facts added as they appear. Qutezuce 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- If you delete all the speculation there is now, there won't be anything left. -- zerofoks 00:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- At the very least you would have that it is a future book by Dan Brown, which is already enough for an article that will grow in the future. Secondly, it should be pointed out that much of the speculation is not Wikipedians speculating, but speculation that has already been recorded elsewhere, and hence is verifiable. Finally, there are many facts, the relation to Kryptos is fact (the coords of Kryptos were on the dust jacket of his previous book), the web quest is all fact as it comes from the publishers website, etc. Whether these relate to The Solomon Key is debatable, but outside sources have made the connection, not Wikipedians speculating. Qutezuce 00:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- None of that is "fact". It's pure media hype generated for something that doesn't even exist, yet. I see no reason how Wikipedians should report on this in a NPOV-manner suitable for an encyclopedia. And no, you would not have at the very least the "fact" that the book will be out in 2006 because you don't know it will be. It might be, but then again, it might be not. It's just a plan. -- zerofoks 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I never said anything about 2006, I said it is a future book by Dan Brown. The term "future book" obviously doesn't mean that the book is sure to come out, as no on can predict the future, Dan Brown could die suddenly and the book would not get published, but right now he is alive and his intention is to publish the book in the future. The publisher may be trying to hype the book with a Web Quest, but it is still a fact that a Web Quest existed. Qutezuce 01:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the article is not speculation itself but a record of the speculation of others. I imagine that the book will be published whether or not Dan Brown is alive to see it. In the event of its non-appearance, the content of the article can refer to the book and media hype in a neutral way. --
(aeropagitica)
01:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:Not_a_crystal_ball not a published book yet. -- Pboyd04 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete WP should document things that exist in real life or in a fictional setting, not things that do not exist. Endomion 02:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Tough luck for Category:2006 books then.... -- zerofoks 03:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per above. This is real fiction. -- JJay 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. As long as information on the page is drawn from other sources, it is valid. For example, Dan Brown has hinted at potential topics of the book in occasional lectures and interviews. There is huge public interest in the book, and those hints have been covered by news organizations such as Wired and the Wall Street Journal. It is perfectly valid for this article to provide a collection of Brown's hints and other speculations, as long as their source or reference is mentioned. Elonka 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep WP:Not_a_crystal_ball states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." This has verifiable information, and I'm sure a book by Dan Brown merits as significant interest. Metsfanmax 17:06, 03 January 2005 (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 (it is now a redirect, that page also to be deleted) -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 22:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
If monkeys were masons
Delete. Non-notable, article created by the person who runs the company that produced the film. Tufflaw 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not in IMDB. seems nn. -- Pboyd04 01:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
01:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete monkeycruft. Endomion 01:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Pboyd04. Movementarian 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. - NeoJustin 02:44, Devember 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn--> Newyorktimescrossword 03:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per NN, can recreate page if IMDB adds it. VegaDark 07:21, 29 December 2005 (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 -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 22:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
If Monkeys Were Masons
Delete. See previous entry Tufflaw 01:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- This page is in its early stages and is one of my first contributions to wikipedia. As regards the film, this might not be a hollywood blockbuster release but it is very much an available, well received film and distribution is continuing to grow. This film is important as a true reflection of the experiences had by the hundreds of thousands of young people who travel to this area every year.
- I agree that Come the Monkeys should be merged in here and will perform the operation shortly.
- Why so keen to delete?? Not what I had expected given the inclusiveness of the project I have witnessed thus far.
-
User:Deiz 01:05, 29 Decemeber (GMT)
- I took the liberty of moving your comment around so it appears on the AFD page correctly. All of these pages you created were nominated because they are either about you personally, your company, or your films, in violation of the Wikipedia vanity guidelines. Tufflaw 01:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, i see what you mean. Ah well, was fun learning how to create articles... Deiz 01:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's OK, nothing wrong with an honest mistake. Check out some of the links I posted at your talk page, there's a lot of info there on how to be a happy and successful Wikipedian. Welcome! Tufflaw 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete you seemed to have grasped the formatting, now just to find a topic that isn't about you :) - FrancisTyers 01:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment good taste in music though! Why no Kyuss? - FrancisTyers 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete monkeycruft. Endomion 01:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, mostly because
Wikipedia is not infinite. These articles do not assert notability, and therefore should be deleted.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
01:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Movementarian 02:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Userify (anything that is not in clear violation of guidelines (other than than notability and vanity) and that contains significant work ought to be considered for userification, IMHO) ++ Lar 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, the movie hasn't got enough media attention to become notable. -- ReyBrujo 01:56, 30 December 2005 (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 -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 22:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Come The Monkeys
Delete. See previous entry Tufflaw 01:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete also not in IMDB. seems nn. -- Pboyd04 01:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete monkeycruft. Endomion 01:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, mostly because
Wikipedia is not infinite. These articles do not assert notability, and therefore should be deleted.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
01:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Movementarian 02:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. - NeoJustin 02:44, Devember 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete absurd, nn, a joke--> Newyorktimescrossword 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, the movie hasn't got enough media attention to become notable. -- ReyBrujo 01:57, 30 December 2005 (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 -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Rob redding
NN, possible vanity. - FrancisTyers 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete pn!Keep and move to Rob Redding and add tags. - FrancisTyers 12:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)- Keep. Black radio personality heard throughout US. Please provide serious nom with reasons. -- JJay 01:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Check
this out. One of the articles that comes up says he is syndicated in all 50 states, which is pretty notable, if you ask me. Just a suggestion, because I've messed up before too, you might want to read into
Wikipedia's Vanity Guidelines in the future before you reccomend "possible vanity."
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
01:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Although the article could use a lot of work, he is a syndicated radio host and merits inclusion in my opinion. Movementarian 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but this entire article should be rewritten. I can't find the source, but it looks a copy/paste to me, which means its likely a copyvio (if it's proven a copyvio, then it will obviously need to be deleted, but I can't prove it). Anyway, the person warrants an article. -- Rob 03:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep Article should only be kept if it is re-written and made better.--> Newyorktimescrossword 03:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep. Resolve the issues mentioned in the other comments. Logophile 10:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Yes, the article is poorly written - but that merits a {{cleanup}} or {{wikify}} tag, not a nomination to be deleted as Newyorktimescrossword has suggested. - Rebelguys2 12:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm closing this as KEEP but the page is in a sorry state. To the "conditional keeps" above, note that bad format is never (that I know of) a cause for deletion, if it is truly bad format and nothing else. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 22:08, 30 December 2005 (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 merged and redirected by Thivierr. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
CILV
Delete. non-notable, station is apparently only two days old. Tufflaw 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Station may only be two days old, but the parent company is older. No less significant than other local radio stations in Wikipedia, just newer. Movementarian 02:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Thank god radio stations are still being started. -- JJay 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- merge/redirect to CILV-FM. -- Rob 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep despite it being new, it has the potential to be notable and per tufflaw also. --> Newyorktimescrossword 04:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but I'll still keep listening to my far superior
XM.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
07:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep since we seem to keep all genuine licensed broadcast radio stations. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 12:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Per
Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations, Wikipedia policy explicitly permits articles on broadcast radio stations. The fact a station is two days old has no bearing on this policy. This would be a slamdunk except for one thing: I already wrote this up at
CILV-FM a few weeks ago. (Even licensed-but-not-launched stations are allowed articles, if their call sign, owner, frequency, format and expected launch date are known, and Wikipedia policy also expects the radio station's article to include the -FM suffix.) Redirect to
CILV-FM; I've already copied any content that wasn't already in the other article.
Bearcat 17:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations is not policy, and a number of projects involve creating articles that end up being deleted (sad but true). But, you're still basically correct (in terms of defacto policy), in that AFD precedent for some time, has been to keep broadcasters (radio and TV) even if they're "just" local stations. I recently added a comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Precedents#local broadcasters suggesting we updated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Entertainment to say that such stations are now deemed notable according to more recent AFD precedent. The only reason I didn't change it myself, is I would like to see some agreement before changing it unilaterly. Nominations, like this one, are likely to be repeated if people are under the impression stations like this are being deleted (which they're not). -- Rob 17:49, 29 December 2005 (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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 12:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
SWCity
Virtual community with 20 members, no more significant than a small MUD or web forum
- Delete. Gazpacho 03:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete no media attention claimed, 20 members, 5,246,179 alexa rating, I'd say they fail all 3 things in WP:WEB. -- Pboyd04 03:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously not notable. - Bootstoots 03:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please keep no, this is notable, it is WIDELY known by the activeworlds community which has thousands of users. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kol65 (
talk •
contribs) (Kol65 was original author of article)
- Delete; *known* could mean "heard of it once"; a few thousand "knowing" of it doesn't make it notable. Just 20 *active members* suggests it isn't significant. Merge and redirect also acceptable; info may be worthwhile as small section in larger article. Fourohfour 10:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete 20 members != thousands. NN
Search
4
Lancer
04:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per NN or Merge with Active Worlds. VegaDark 07:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as per extension of nn-bio. Shall I? -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 12:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete under New! IMPROVED! A7. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 18:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per it's own admissions of tinynes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusduck ( talk • contribs)
- Delete, it may qualify for a Speedy under CSD:A7 per club, but I am unsure. -- ReyBrujo 02:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wow, that is VERY NN. - Liontamer 09:05, 3 January 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. — JIP | Talk 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hugh Flynt
Non notable, does not appear in All Music Guide, all references in other Wiki articles created by article's primary author, only Google hit is article. Cigarette 04:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment does appear in IMDB (under birth name) all small time parts probably a nn actor. -- Pboyd04 04:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - He does appear in the IMDB under "Jamie Mahoney", but may not fulfill Wikipedia notability guidelines. — TheKMan talk 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting to get more consensus New votes below this line, please--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NMG or WP:BIO. PJM 14:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete doesn't appear to be that notable a rapper. --
(aeropagitica)
15:36, 4 January 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 Cobra 02:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Melchers
It's just an obvious example of someone who should have instead been playing around in the sandbox. It details three non-notable names in an unwikified format, and the article title is not one that appears readily salvageable into anything Wikipedia-worthy.
Frag 08:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I apologize; it was about 4 AM here at the time, and I carelessly did not check the history. I'm changing my vote to a Keep. -- Frag
Delete per nom.Keep, saw vandalized version when I did my original vote. VegaDark 09:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)- This is a nice nomination, so I'm rather sad to bring news that it's kinda boneheaded, in its way. The article started off as a disambig, but was vandalised. It's the vandalised version that has been nominated for deletion. I have reverted back to the good one. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 11:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep after the revert. -- Pboyd04 15:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Now it is fixed. Obina 15:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. All three people are notable and the building is notable as well. This is a valid disambiguation. --
Soothing
R 21:17, 29 December 2005 (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.
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Bellhaven (2nd nomination) for the nomination in June 2006.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 -- Ichiro 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Native Guns
This appears to be a non-notable rap group. They have no listing on allmusic, and the small number of links returned by Google are mostly either geocities or myspace pages. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The second half of this article is a copyvio of their MySpace webpage, http://www.myspace.com/kiwi Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Article appears well researched and deals with an important Filipino hip hop/rap group. Yes, it's absolutely correct that non-USA rap (or any non-English language rap for that matter) is not generally covered by All Music Guide, no matter its quality or importance to its local culture or subculture, all the more reason such groups be covered here.
Badagnani 12:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please review WP:MUSIC. Which inclusion criteria does this group meet? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Furthermore, these musicians are born and raised in California, what do you mean by non-USA rap group?
Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- An Internet search shows that the group is well known and performs widely in Filipino and Asian Pacific American cultural festivals, and that it is one of the more active and well regarded hip hop groups in the Filipino American hip hop subculture (probably the third most important hip hop subculture in the U.S. after African American and Puerto Rican American). Further, the group's work frequently appears in Filipino and Asian Pacific American print and radio media. Has also toured throughout the U.S. and Canada. From WP:Music:
- "Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre."
- "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture."
- "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources."
- An Internet search shows that the group is well known and performs widely in Filipino and Asian Pacific American cultural festivals, and that it is one of the more active and well regarded hip hop groups in the Filipino American hip hop subculture (probably the third most important hip hop subculture in the U.S. after African American and Puerto Rican American). Further, the group's work frequently appears in Filipino and Asian Pacific American print and radio media. Has also toured throughout the U.S. and Canada. From WP:Music:
Badagnani 00:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:MUSIC based on the article, and I can't find anything that would show otherwise. And there really is no systemic bias against Californians. - Bobet 13:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete lets start a systemic bias against Californians! (actual reason: fails WP:MUSIC per above). -- Pboyd04 15:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the article on the Native Guns should not be deleted on the grounds that they are a not only a staple in current Filipino-American hip-hop culture, but of independent (indie) hip-hop music and are also well known activists for human/Asian Pacific American rights. They are known within that community and yes while they are NOT on allmusic.com, so aren't Francis Magalona, or Andrew E. who's impact in the history of Philipppine-based Filipino hip-hop cannot be disputed. Neither are even "Asin" or Florante who are national stars and heroes and whos anti-Marcos songs such as "Upuan" and "Balita" played a big role in the inspiring the famous 1986 EDSA People's Power Revolution and also have had their songs along with Freddie Aguilar translated into more than 20 languages and have become hit songs in other countries other than the Philippines. What these artists meant to Philippine-based hip-hop and rock then is exactly what the Native Guns mean to the Filipino-American hip-hop community now. It should also be noted that the Native Guns' Kiwi, (born Jack DeJesus) went to high school with the world famous Black Eyed Peas' Apl.de.ap (Allan Pineda) as well as Will.i.am and was one of the influences young Allan had upon moving here from the Philippines. Furthermore the Native Guns have been featured in numerous magazine and newspaper articles, and were named one of L.A.'s "Top 10 Most Intriguing Bands" by the L.A. Alternative Press. Links:
Native Guns featured in Canada's Vancouver Georgia Straight Weekly-[ [10]] Named one of L.A.'s "Top Ten Most Intriguing Bands"-[ [11]] Featured in asianweek.com- [ [12]] Fil-Arts Fest- [ [13]] sfweekly.com- [ [14]]
The duo was also featured in Jointz Mag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.125.85 ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 December 2005 User:Wikipedian13
- Keep Well written article. I see no reason this should be deleted. Check two you 23:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I'm amazed- this is an incredibly informative article on the underground asian hiphop scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.7.193 ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 January 2006
- This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Hey this is Kiwi of the Native Guns. i just found out about all this recently, so bear with me. anyway, as far as the article, yes there's some cut-n-paste, but whatever's written about us looks satisfactory. not sure how else to go about this. we're also mentioned in an article on wikipedia regarding filipino hip hop [ [15]]. i can clean it up if need be, but for the most part, it's accurate. if you need me to add or clarify anything let me know groundworkmusic@yahoo.com. as far as whether or not we're 'worthy' of being on here well that's not my decision but i think the track record speaks for itself. sorry if i didn't follow the format, i never even heard of wikipedia until now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.4.166 ( talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Rob 01:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete probably qualifies as band-vanity.
ALKIVAR
™
12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:V. If we can't verify what you say is the truth, then we can't have it in the wiki. RasputinAXP talk contribs 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep based on writeups in regional music and culture magazines. Tim Pierce 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per above comments. Jcuk 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I am a doctoral student writing about cultural studies and social transformation at UC Berkeley. Native Guns and Kiwi are one of the top hip hop groups within that APIA community, and in terms of messaging, bridges everything from the personal to the community and the international. Native Guns is well known and loved in the community from LA to the Bay to NYC and Chi-town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.134.213 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep Falls under:
- Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city
- Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
- Information is verifiable under multiple sources (specifically within the APIA music and activism scene), including:
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankuei ( talk • contribs)
- comment - Some people make bad-faith copyright violation nominations, in order to do an end run around the {afd} procedure. An article I started was on the receiving end of someone willing to take advantage of the three week long backlog in addressing copy-vios. So I checked this assertion. The copy-vio assertion is solid. I went back to the beginning of the article, to see whether rhe article could be saved by reeling back to an earlier version that was not a copy-vio. The very first contributor's version incorporated material from its external links.
- This does not mean there should be no article about this band. If the original author of the material on the myspace web-pages that has been incorporated into this article releases it under an appropriate liscence, or puts their material in the public domain, the copy-vio concern goes away... -- Geo Swan 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Excellent article, seems notable enough. Kevin 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Looks notable to me. A.J.A. 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Well researched, needs some help with the style, but overall no way that this should be deleted. Soo 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Terence Ong Talk 14:15, 5 January 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 wasno consensus reached, defaulting to keep. Tznkai 10:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Ali Sina
There is no proof that Ali Sina is who he says he is. He might just be an a group of islamophobes with an agenda. There is no way to objectively determine who or what Ali Sina is, all we have is "his" own words and "his" hatefilled website م 11:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- NOTE I suspect that the editor who put the page up for deletion is a sockpuppet , only a few edits in Wikipedia.-- CltFn 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: Just that a section of people finds it offensive doesn't mean we silence the voice. It is 21st century, we are not barbarians and just that I disagree with him doesn't constitute reason enough to delete.
- Strong Delete: Very strong attack on a sixth of the world. One of my best friends is Muslim, and she even wished me a Merry Christmas, so I highly doubt Islam is a religion of hate. Sceptre( Talk) 12:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Very controversial character but he does exist in some form. With the same logic we should delete number of other articles about other religious commentators who use similar rhetoric. Article is relatively NPOV - Skysmith 13:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep did you even read the page, most of it is criticism of him. Needs a cleanup tag added though, and possible NPOV'ing - FrancisTyers 13:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I feel we need to focus on the importance of the Website here. We may strongly disagree with what it says, but that's not an adequate reason for deletion. Dlyons493 Talk 13:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Alexa rank >40,000, Wikipedia is the top site linking in according to Alexa. Thgere is no practical limit to the number of bigots out there, we are not obliged to cover every one. Existence and content are both verifiable, though the sources generally fall well below reliable. Of course this could just be my wishy-washy liberal side coming to the fore. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 14:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Attack page. -- Pboyd04 16:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete a person who runs his own webpage to attack a religion. Agree with what Just zis Guy, you know? said about every bigot having an article. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are misrepresenting Ali Sina with your generalizations, I wonder why? Here we see the true face of Anonimous editor , not the one he presents at his request for adminship. Ali Sina is a humanist and stands for human rights and freedom of religion , freedom of thought and speech. He has taken a couragous stand against human oppresion of the vilest kind. I wonder why you omit to mention that? -- CltFn 13:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete . The article , most probably made by himself . Every now & then we have got a person ( may be him , may be his followers ) who wanna turn it into a Sina temple . These IDs are impossible to deal with ( see the talk page ). The article & links are mainly used to increase the search reasults when people google for it . Other than that , a person ( or group ) who's sole existance is based on a single hate site....I dont see a single reason for having this article . The article has always been a big waste of time , & if it exists ,it will remain to be that way . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 20:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Revolución ( talk) 01:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Good or bad, this guy appears to have drawn a good deal of attention. --
Mwalcoff 01:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Could you tell us which good deal of attention he has drawn?
google news.
Szvest 05:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
this google news search is better.
gren
グレン 05:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The External Links section of the article indicates he's made some waves. --
Mwalcoff 05:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Apart from Asia Times and [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 WND] (both articles of late 2004), the rest are affiliate websites of hims. Cheers -- Szvest 05:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
- The External Links section of the article indicates he's made some waves. --
Mwalcoff 05:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
this google news search is better.
gren
グレン 05:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Could you tell us which good deal of attention he has drawn?
google news.
Szvest 05:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep-people who are voting to delete seem to dislike the person, and have fixable concerns with the article, but no reason why there shouldnt be an article on this. The external links show how notable this guy is. How pissed of you guys are proves how notable this is. Wikipedia is not censored. There is no reason why this article couldnt be improved to discuss this notable and verifiable topic in a NPOV. Masterdebater 07:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Why should every critic of Islam have a seperate article in Wikipedia ? If this is because of "his" site then it does not meet any three guidelines mentioned at WP:WEB. This site even site do not have a valid whois record. -- Soft coder Talk 09:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - Not notable, being controversial and insulting is not enough to have own article. -- A.Garnet 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --NaconKantari 01:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep This clown exists and seems to have a strong following. What better way to disabuse him of his disgusting notions than to hold his feet to the flame of public exposure? D e nni ☯ 03:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - I'll definetely vote Keep but only if the article is cleaned up from too much detail from his website and his opponents' sites. We should summarize both his views and his opponents w/o quoting large chunks of comments or writings from both sites! The second point is that refrain from quoting him in all relegious articles as his notability is contested. He's no different than Israel Shamir (though Shamir is not a pseudonym but a real person) and the treatment should be no different! Only then I would vote Keep. Therefore, I'd appreciate to know if the Keep votes above agree about this. Cheers -- Szvest 17:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
- keep Nickbee 06:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)nickbee
- Delete Doesn't seem very notable. Yuber (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't know whether he's one man or half a dozen schoolgirls, because there don't seem to be any credible third-party sources either about the website or about Ali Sina. The article is a violation of
WP:V.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 09:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't push that analogy too far. Deap throat was known only to woodward but he still deserved an article. Although, Ali Sina is no Felt. I think this is more of an issue of non notable... while verifiability is making sure you write the article letting users know that the only source about him is him. Not that I really need to tell you that...
gren
グレン 10:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Deepthroat was written about by journalists in reputable newspapers. Ali Sina has no credible third-party sources that have written about him, so far as I know. If he really is the only source of information about himself or the website, the article shouldn't exist, because the lack of third-party sources speaks to lack of notability as well as verifiability. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't push that analogy too far. Deap throat was known only to woodward but he still deserved an article. Although, Ali Sina is no Felt. I think this is more of an issue of non notable... while verifiability is making sure you write the article letting users know that the only source about him is him. Not that I really need to tell you that...
gren
グレン 10:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- And even then deep throat was IMO questionable as a separate subject outside Watergate until his identity was known, at which point it turns out he was a notable person anyway. Or did you mean the movie? ;-) -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD? 16:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- And even then deep throat was IMO questionable as a separate subject outside Watergate until his identity was known, at which point it turns out he was a notable person anyway. Or did you mean the movie? ;-) -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
- Well, his wikipedia account would often make comments such as "We are all Sina". Yuber (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Could use some chopping of quotes, but I fail to see how the contents of the article are unverifiable. Further, the original move to delete seems to have been by someone with no name. I smell an intent to suppress and censor. rudra 11:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this guy is allowed to express his point of view even if many find them offensive, and there are plenty of anti (put you favorite religion here) hate site out there. On the other side we just can't pretend he doesn't exist and burry our head in the sand. We better have a strong NPOV entry about this guy which can balance his radical and personal views.-- Khalid hassani 20:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He's a published writer and is notable enough. It also seems that the article has recieved a fair amount of interest from Wikipedias readers, and it has been edited maybe around 6 or 700 times since it was created around a year ago. -- Karl Meier 22:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- That might be because every week he(or the people he trains for publicitizing his views on WP) add a lot of praise to him . The article is a continuous battle field b/w him/his followers & people who want to keep it NPOV (see talk page). F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not notable -- Snakes 01:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable, or move to faithfreedom.org. Palmiro | Talk 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete -- Khalid! 11:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete(pls check my new vote below if you can find a way out of this jungle) - Excesive trolling defending the article. Trolling (played by remote control from a few online forums) for an article about a non-notable person/alien. I was thinking of voting keep, then thinking of not voting in a scandalous rfa like this one, but I believe now that this operations is clearly manipulative. -- Szvest 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
- Addendum - I've just noted this new addition in the article by an anon [24]. Please read it carefully! The additions is a quote from the subject's website stating that "My site is not hate-filled and this is clear to any unbiased person." This is what the article serves for! A forum for an alien, a pseudonym!!! Also it states " "With all due respect, as long as you are a Muslim you are a potential terrorist and this is the message that I want to communicate to the world." " W/o Wikipedia, the subject is everything but notable! The new additions are directed to wikipedia and not to the Washington Post! Wiki me up™
- Strong Keep. As Ali Sina says himself, his credentials are not relevant to the truthfulness of his claims. And these claims are true. And truth should be voiced. When Muslim countries will start to treat religious minorities as it should be, there could be a talk about "Islamophobia". For now, it is only the "Kafirophobia" that is strongly present. If there is an article about Islamophobia here, there should be one about Kafirophobia as well. Also, Mr. Sceptre should know that "best friends" cannot change Quran and Ahadith. And one person does not represent "one fifth" of the world. So this vote is not based at all.-- Aleverde 15:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Admins plz see the history . Anon IPs are deleting delete votes . Thanks . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 09:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- strong Keep He is a published author and the leader of the ex muslim apostate movement. If the article was not notable then why all the interest, why all the edit wars. And I wonder why a particular group of editors has been toiling incessantly to denigrate Ali Sina and his work.-- CltFn 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable -- Kefalonia 14:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC
- Keep It does not matter whether he is or is not a "real person." Fictional characters also have a place in Wikipedia. It does not also matter whether it is a pseudonym of just one or of several individuals. All that matters is that some author who calls himself Ali Sina and claims to be whatever he claims to be maintains a popular website devoted to everybody knows what despite repeated opinions that he is not notable.-- Pecher 20:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding verifiability, it is still possible to include self-published information in biographies of living persons. I do not see any problems in this case if his biographical information, clearly attributed to his website, is included in the article. It is certainly not ideal, but still possible.-- Pecher 20:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see the article any less ignorant than the other anti-Islam articles found on Wikipedia. For example, check out Category:Books critical of Islam. -- JuanMuslim 1m 16:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Ali Sina is notable enough at least for thousands of sites that mention his name and quote him. He has also been interviewed in radios. In no place he has said Ali Sina is a pseudonym. This is something Wikipedians have written about him and he has neither confirmed it nor denied it. [25]. Despite that encyclopaedias cover totally imaginary personages including mythological figures. The fact that a personage is imaginary is not reason for him not to be reported. There is more evidence that Ali Sina exists as a real person than there is for Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, Anaximander, Anaximenes and Democritus. These ancient philosophers are only mentioned by Plato and there is not even a book left from them. All it takes to dismiss their existence is to doubt Plato and yet no sane person would do such thing.
- Let us face the truth. All these vilifications and belittling of Ali Sina are motivated by religious hatred. It is basically the same editors who constantly censored anything I wrote on Islam who are now claiming this Article should be deleted. This is another attempt to censorship and silencing the views contrary to Islam.
- Wikipedia has articles about less notable persons than Ali Sina. There is no pandemonium about deleting them because those people do not criticize Islam. This commotion is about Islam and not about Ali Sina. It just shows the intolerance of Muslims to even acknowledge the existence of apostates and critics of Islam. Sadly these people come here with a religious agenda and not to promote knowledge and impartiality. Denying this fact, because it may offend these people is like hiding our heads in the sand and not willing to see the obvious. OceanSplash Jan 5, 2006 23:16
- Firstly, mythical figures are noted as mythical. I really don't think you want us saying Ali Sina is mythical. There is also tons of literature written about Zeus — this is not true about Ali Sina. Also, it's not because he is an ex-Muslim. The Ibn Warraq article is not up for deletion because just about no one thinks he is not notable. So, we shouldn't exactly oversimplify this to being Muslims against non-Muslims. My personal opinion is that a lot of people are voting delete because this article has attracted loads of anons and unfortunately there have been calls on the FFI forums to come here and edit... well, when people come to get into edit wars on an article that is most definitely not necessarily encyclopedic then people will want to delete it. gren グレン 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with OceanSplash. Why else would someone delete my "Keep" comments only 18 minutes after I had posted them here on January 4th? (please see History) Anonymous 5 January, 2005 8:38 PM Eastern Time
- The reason is likely because your vote won't be counted anyways. User with little or no edits votes don't really count. Although, I did not see the particular circumstances.
gren
グレン 05:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Gren Your contribution in this page goes beyond just giving your opinion. You are responding to every “Keep” post and are being militant. This is indication of strong bias, a kind of bias that can only be inspired by religious zeal. Your views can hardly be taken as impartial in this matter. OceanSplash Jan 5, 2006 23:36
- He asked a question. I answered. One would almost thing that if I felt so strongly I'd vote delete... no? Or you know, delete it myself with my special little button. ~_~ If you look at AfD policies admins don't taken into account votes of users who have incredibly few contributions or seem to have come only for an AfD. Find me any user who voted delete with so few edits and I'll tell them too. However, if you look at it, mostly users who voted "keep" have so few edits. Geez, man. :) gren グレン 10:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Ali Sina is not nearly notable enough to be a necessary entity for this encyclopedia. However, this is wikipedia and we are not paper. We have pages for minor porn stars, really non-notable albums and I'm sure I could dig out other articles. Ali Sina is about on that level. The only thing that makes him different is that he has an internet following and that makes his article prone to edit wars. So, I'm not going to delete it... and last time I voted keep... it really causes too many problems for its worth so this time I won't taken any initiative to save it. gren グレン 11:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I think Fayssal's Israel Shamir comparison is a good one, and we have a long and reasonably sympathetic article on Shamir. If this one needs to be cleaned up and improved, let's do so, but that is not grounds for deletion of the topic. Babajobu 20:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment per Fayssal ... the article is cleaned up from too much detail from his website and his opponents' sites. We should summarize both his views and his opponents w/o quoting large chunks of comments or writings from both sites! I agree, and if the article doesn't improve in a while and it is brought up for deletion again I may consider revising my vote. But for now it stays as Keep, this seems like a content dispute that has spilled over into AfD. - FrancisTyers 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The article provides one person's view and there is no attempt to pass it off as fact or endorse it. Like Babajobu said, it's the same issue as Israel Shamir article. Do we silence someone because we find their views offensive or different from ours? I hope not. Aiden 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep while keeping my comments on my previous delete vote - My first comment before voting delete was a thought for a keep on the grounds that this article should be cleaned up and abide by the rules of Wikipedia. After the confirmation of Babajobu and Francis, I change my vote to keep with ease, somehow getting an insurance. I'll be up observing that happening and don't mind if I'd sometimes get bold applying the rules. The trolling is not acceptable there. Trolls, be aware! Cheers -- Szvest 21:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Edits by anons and first-time editors as well as related comments are placed here
keep! - why are people worried whether he is ex-muslim or not? does his charges aginst islam become void in that case? it is not right to censor thoughts, everyone has a right to express his ideas. so keep this article and try to improve it!
- Comment Wikipedia isn't the place for people to express their ideas, it is an encyclopedia--a collection of knowledge. Logophile 01:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Both Ali Sina and Faithfreedom.org are notable. Faithfreedom was quoted in a report by the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment on the murder of Theo van Gogh. -- Kwnl 0:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rudra, I'm just not very computer-literate, I thought I did sign my comment if not my user name is (م). My intention is not to censor anyone. My objection to this racist's entry are basic. First, I don't know how popular this "guy" is, but the first time I heard about him was on wikipedia. His name was constantly thrown around by someone on the Islam discussion board. That user has since been blocked for his racist/hatefilled/islamphobic comments (Gren I think you know who I am reffering to ;). Hence, I do not want wikipedia to be used as a platform for "his" hatred. The second reason has to do with "his" identity. I know that bios are done on everone, good or evil. But no one knows who this "man" is. He could be one person, he could be an entire hate group. Wikipedia can not rely on this idiot's words for its main source. By the way Kwnl I wonder if the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment realizes that this bigot(s) main, and stated, purpose is to eliminate all muslims from off the face of the Earth.م 06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Calling Ali Sina a "racist", a bigot" and whatever else without substantiation only reveals your motivation more clearly. This is not the place to debate his views, nor the place to enforce your personal opinion of them.
rudra 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- He is a bigot, but I think that it is important that bigots be exposed. 129.234.4.10 17:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Calling Ali Sina a "racist", a bigot" and whatever else without substantiation only reveals your motivation more clearly. This is not the place to debate his views, nor the place to enforce your personal opinion of them.
rudra 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rudra, I'm just not very computer-literate, I thought I did sign my comment if not my user name is (م). My intention is not to censor anyone. My objection to this racist's entry are basic. First, I don't know how popular this "guy" is, but the first time I heard about him was on wikipedia. His name was constantly thrown around by someone on the Islam discussion board. That user has since been blocked for his racist/hatefilled/islamphobic comments (Gren I think you know who I am reffering to ;). Hence, I do not want wikipedia to be used as a platform for "his" hatred. The second reason has to do with "his" identity. I know that bios are done on everone, good or evil. But no one knows who this "man" is. He could be one person, he could be an entire hate group. Wikipedia can not rely on this idiot's words for its main source. By the way Kwnl I wonder if the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment realizes that this bigot(s) main, and stated, purpose is to eliminate all muslims from off the face of the Earth.م 06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete
- Keep There is enough interest on this subject to be included. There is no reason why the content cannot be improved to be impartial. However, there's evidence of 'conflict of interest' by certain editors.
- Keep Ali Sina has debted with very notable Islamic scholars, and has quite a large fanbase. He has also attracted a lot of attention from many well-known Islamic representitves, including Zakir Naik. He's certainly influential enough to have his own page, no doubt about that.
- "Strong Keep" Everybody is entitled to have their own views, we might agree or disagree, but disagreement is not the basis for deletion. It is censorship.
- Red herring. The issue here is not whether this anonymous bigot has a right to say what it says, but whether this particular anonymous bigot is sufficiently important or notable to merit inclusion in a general encyclopaedia, per (for example) the
guidelines on biographies of living people. Since we don't even have a name, that's kind of hard to defend in this case. Other guidelines indicate
what qualifies as encyclopaedic in websites, and here, too, there is an apparent shortfall. Painting this as a freedom of speech issue is a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is - or rather what it
is not, namely a soapbox. -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD? 16:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Your personal opinion that this person is a "bigot" does not make him any more or less notable.--
Pecher 09:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's not just my personal opinion, but let that pass. If this was a known, credible person, or if the column were sindicated in
reliable sources I'd have no problemwith it. But we don't know who "Ali Sina" is; all we know is that there is a website (which appears to me to fail
WP:WEB, but that is debatable since there is some evidence of external coverage). Since "Ali Sina" is not known to be a real person, this is really covering the website (really more of a blog) not the person. I don't think either the website or the fake "Ali Sina" persona is notable. There is precious little which can be
verified from
reliable sources. There is, after all, no world shortage of
bigotsopinionated cowards (if you prefer), we don't need to cover them all just for fear of offending some islamophobes. Many of the arguments here (not yours) seem to be based on "X has no right to say this" or "we may not prevent X from saying this" - that's a diversion. This is not about the opinions or their merit, it's about the article and its subject. In my opinion this bigot is no different from all the other bigots pouring out hate speech on the Internet. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C]
AfD? 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's not just my personal opinion, but let that pass. If this was a known, credible person, or if the column were sindicated in
reliable sources I'd have no problemwith it. But we don't know who "Ali Sina" is; all we know is that there is a website (which appears to me to fail
WP:WEB, but that is debatable since there is some evidence of external coverage). Since "Ali Sina" is not known to be a real person, this is really covering the website (really more of a blog) not the person. I don't think either the website or the fake "Ali Sina" persona is notable. There is precious little which can be
verified from
reliable sources. There is, after all, no world shortage of
- Red herring. The issue here is not whether this anonymous bigot has a right to say what it says, but whether this particular anonymous bigot is sufficiently important or notable to merit inclusion in a general encyclopaedia, per (for example) the
guidelines on biographies of living people. Since we don't even have a name, that's kind of hard to defend in this case. Other guidelines indicate
what qualifies as encyclopaedic in websites, and here, too, there is an apparent shortfall. Painting this as a freedom of speech issue is a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is - or rather what it
is not, namely a soapbox. -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
- strongly delete
- Keep. Clearly a notable person.-- Pecher 20:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) User's second vote
- Really? What's the notable person's name then? -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD? 22:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's not relevant to the issue of notability.-- Pecher 09:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Really? What's the notable person's name then? -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[ talk] 04:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Nicholas Langman
Wikipedia is not a news report. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not delete this entry - it is important that this name be made public because the British authorities are trying to conceal it.
- Weak Keep if more information can be added, otherwise delete. - FrancisTyers 13:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since then, more info has been added to this entry. -- Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I can find the mention that the newspaper in question published a name, but not any information that this actually is his name. If someone can verify it, change to keep. - Bobet 13:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since then, this person's identity has been verified. -- Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking reliable sources. Very few links, some to absurd Diana conspiracies (why do people have such a hard time believing that a drunk driver crashed? It happens every day!) Remember, people, There Is No Cabal! Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 14:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I still don't see it. There should probably be an article on the kidnappings, but not on one person stated to have been there at the time. Do we have other articles for bystandeers? -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD? 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't see it. There should probably be an article on the kidnappings, but not on one person stated to have been there at the time. Do we have other articles for bystandeers? -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
- Delete By all means have an article on the purported kidnappings. But by the nature of the supposed D-Notice it seems impossible to link these to Nicholas Langman Dlyons493 Talk 14:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since then... see above. -- Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since then... see above. -- Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Here is the Greek newspaper article published on 25 December 2005 Stavros-Athens
http://cryptome.org/br-gr-spies.htm
- Weak Keep Other Greek press report the same name these days, see for example from Ta Nea http://ta-nea.dolnet.gr/print_article.php?e=A&f=18426&m=N09&aa=1 as to the person's name, and some image of a memo from the same article, http://ta-nea.dolnet.gr/print_article.php?e=A&f=18426&m=N09&aa=1, shows the original English spelling of the name. I agree additional information beyond the name should be included to keep this article. ArielGlenn 23:40 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Langman has been named in a national British newspaper ( The Morning Star), one of the rare occasions where a British media organisation defies the D-Notice system and admits to having done so. He is also reportedly the subject of a criminal complaint in Greece and the complainant intends to seek his extradition. Rugxulo 15:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as an article, but add in additional information about him and NPOV the allegations. -- Vodex 00:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Serious allegations against him related to an important event, the July 7 London bombings, very little other information about him available Chaikney 19:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep British newspapers have now named him, in defiance of the D-Notice Stavros-athens 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --
Ichiro 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep now that he has appeared in the press. The issue of information obtained by torture/maltreatment in the GWOT is highly notable. -- Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Too much evidence to remove. Story is not false. Verified in English Media. As shown in links on page.
- Comment The incident is clearly notable but personally I've yet seen nothing that links this persons name to it. None of the article links appear to and I don't see it in ArielGlenn link either. Could someone spell it out for me please? Dlyons493 Talk 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but it should also be wikified in a better way, shouldn't it?!? -- Angelo 00:59, 8 January 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 kill everyone involved in writing the article. DS 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
NTHTLVA
Unverifiable [38] [39], probably an hoax. - Liberatore( T) 16:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 16:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - As said above - nonverifiable. Also contradicts itself (why would the people be vegan and not care for animals?) Finally it uses a slang term (tree huggers) which the environmentalist movement would not likely use itself. - localzuk 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete hoax if they actually supported human genocide they would be to busy killing people, along with themselves presumably, to write a wikipedia article. -- Pboyd04 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Complete nonsense. - Bootstoots 19:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable, hoax -- Quarl 21:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete.
Nonsense belong in here.
Soothing
R 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if real, not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antaeus Feldspar ( talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Out of all the votes cast here, the ones that were actually valid were 10 DELETE votes and 3 KEEP votes, two of them being marginal as Jhyancey and Patentgeek have only edited articles related to this discussion. There were 3 subsequent keep votes (one as NO REDIRECT) signed by Jhyancey, those were discarded. All IP address votes were discarded. Before anyone cries foul, that includes the IP that voted delete.
Patent jock
|
| 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}}. |
Neologism or hoax, i.e. patent joke... Google doesn't show any evidence of widespread use. I have the strong feeling that this is a gross hoax. The result of the previous vote was "no consensus". Please do revise your opinion. The burden should be on the author of the article to prove notability. -- Edcolins 16:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. -- Edcolins 16:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the only use I could find was patentjock.com -- Pboyd04 16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete search engine results conclude this article is non-notable. Ajwebb 18:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- DO NOT Delete Patent Jock is a real term, and is not a "gross hoax" as asserted by Edcolins. Indeed, I first learned of this term while studying law several years ago. Please also see previous deletion attempt for evidence of usage. As for notability, please re-read this page and note that "widespread usage" is not required for so-called notability. For example, I know nothing about "Action Directe", but it received a wiki entry (See: Edcolins). This means that just because one does not know about a wiki entry that it should be slated for deletion. As for the results of a internet search, this means nothing. Just because the results of an internet search engine does not produce a plethora of results, does not mean the term is not well-known. It just means that google does not list a page using this term. Also, no "burden" is required under wiki deletion policy and if one is required, it was satisfied in previous deletion attempt. Jhyancey 19:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)]]
- Delete Never heard of such a term. Jurisnipper
- Keep it already survived one AfD vote what the hecks it doing back here?! Surely we should be concentrating on new stuff not just rehacking old ground? Unless this is an attempt by the deletionists to get there way by throwing it back here ad nauseum till they finally get it deleted........not that I would suggest such a thing..."G"... Jcuk 21:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do NOT Delete Never heard of such a term? How many of you have heard of omphaloskepsis (meditation while gazing at one's navel), gamp (a large umbrella), ferruminate (to unite; solder), effulgent (shining brightly), pelmatogram (a footprint), jentacular (pertaining to breakfast), ecophobia (fear of home), ultrafidian (ultracredulous; extremely gullible), karimption (a crown, a mass), or savate (fighting with the feet). I guess if we delete this term, then we should delete many other words and phrases that people have "never heard of" from older dictionaries and encyclopedias. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of us are omniscient enough to know everything about everything. We should be asking patent agents and patent attorneys whether they have heard or use the term, not whether Joe Schmoe off the street has heard of the term. --
Jfredericks 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I take the view that
Jfredericks is likely to be a
sock puppet (
contribution
s) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account.-- Edcolins 07:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I take the view that
Jfredericks is likely to be a
sock puppet (
contribution
- Delete as non-notable unverifiable recent neologism, hoax. We're not saying "I never heard of it"; we're saying "we can't find evidence that anybody ever heard of it". -- Quarl 21:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete Well, if all you are saying is "we can't find evidence that anybody ever heard of it," then you haven't read the prior discussion where Jhyancey and Patentgeek (providing a couple of sites) indicated that they know that the term is used. Or are they (and the sources they site) considered nobody?
-- Somebody 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.237.72 ( talk • contribs)- You are right, I don't consider meat puppets and sock puppets as reliable sources. I did check the websites cited as a sources; patentjock.com has no content. --
Quarl 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- And the other link to Baker Botts LLP, one of the more prestigious law firms in the country, carries no weight? Ouch! Hope Jhyancey and Patentgeek don't mind being characterized as puppets... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.196.237.72 (
talk •
contribs)
- It mentions the phrase in passing but there's no way to tell what it means. So the phrase is still unverifiable. P.S. there's no need to create multiple accounts to create the illusion of wide support -- such votes don't count. Almost by definition, anybody who has no prior contributions and suddenly starts supporting another user on an AFD is a meat or sock puppet. See
WP:SOCK. --
Quarl 23:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, now we lower ourselves to accusations. I am the same person who has posted the last two "anonymous or unsigned" entries, as I have not created an account on wiki. Of course, by your name, perhaps that's what you do best... Sorry, but the irony in creating a new and 'unverifiable' term called "sockpuppets" for those who post under different names or "jump in" on deletion wars is quite laughable.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.196.237.72 (
talk •
contribs)
- Even if you don't have a user account or choose not to use it, you should sign your comments. If you are implying that becuase my name is superficially similar to the English word "quarrel" that I am quarrelsome, please read
Wikipedia:Civility and
Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --
Quarl 23:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The administrators who make decisions on deleting articles know very well what
sock puppetry means, so there's no need to accuse me of inventing the term. Indeed this page full of sock puppetry is laughable. --
Quarl 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- My apologies, I wasn't accusing you of inventing the term... its just funny that a potentially created and unverifiable term has made it onto wikipedia, while the phrase in question is under attack as being unverifiable.-- 24.196.237.72 23:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The administrators who make decisions on deleting articles know very well what
sock puppetry means, so there's no need to accuse me of inventing the term. Indeed this page full of sock puppetry is laughable. --
Quarl 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Even if you don't have a user account or choose not to use it, you should sign your comments. If you are implying that becuase my name is superficially similar to the English word "quarrel" that I am quarrelsome, please read
Wikipedia:Civility and
Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --
Quarl 23:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, now we lower ourselves to accusations. I am the same person who has posted the last two "anonymous or unsigned" entries, as I have not created an account on wiki. Of course, by your name, perhaps that's what you do best... Sorry, but the irony in creating a new and 'unverifiable' term called "sockpuppets" for those who post under different names or "jump in" on deletion wars is quite laughable.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.196.237.72 (
talk •
contribs)
- It mentions the phrase in passing but there's no way to tell what it means. So the phrase is still unverifiable. P.S. there's no need to create multiple accounts to create the illusion of wide support -- such votes don't count. Almost by definition, anybody who has no prior contributions and suddenly starts supporting another user on an AFD is a meat or sock puppet. See
WP:SOCK. --
Quarl 23:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- And the other link to Baker Botts LLP, one of the more prestigious law firms in the country, carries no weight? Ouch! Hope Jhyancey and Patentgeek don't mind being characterized as puppets... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.196.237.72 (
talk •
contribs)
- I take the view that
24.196.237.72's vote is likely to be a
sock puppet (
contribution
s) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account. -- Edcolins 07:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are right, I don't consider meat puppets and sock puppets as reliable sources. I did check the websites cited as a sources; patentjock.com has no content. --
Quarl 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking evidence of importance, but having abundant evidence of sockpuppetry. Note to anons: sosckpuppetry is a great way to ensure deletion, keep it up. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep but clean out the POV stuff ("rare skill and extraordinary intellect" "most Patent Jocks are formally trained and some Patent Jocks study at the Franklin Pierce Law Center"--sheesh). rodii 23:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Changing vote, see below.- KEEP NO SOCK PUPPET HERE--What is the goal and purpose of wiki? As a regular wiki reader and user, I think one of wiki's main purposes is providing information to increase knowledge of all. This is exactly what the Patent Jock entry does. How many of you before reading the Patent Jock entry had any knowledge about this subject matter. While the term is well-known in patent attorney circles, this entry conveys this information to all of wiki land. On another, as the main contributor for Patent Jock, I have solicited any assistance from sock puppets, nor have I engaged in that practice. For all of you urging deletion on this article, please see previous post and in particular read the baker botts cited article. (See it here:
http://www.bakerbotts.com/9/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=98609148-a306-4faa-8b42-1f0e376f15d0)
Jhyancey 23:34, 29 December 2005 UTC
- That page (as I explained to the other puppet) doesn't provide enough context to verify anything about the phrase 'patent jock'. If I were to guess I would say you got lucky that some law firm's website happened to have that phrase indexed by Google. Another idea is you have a conflict of interest in having your phrase be "more official" since the registration of patentjock.com on 2004-06-22. Even if it weren't a hoax, it is non-notable; we don't need "copyright jock" and "trademark jock" and "intellectual property jock" and "divorce jock" -- Quarl 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The vote signed by Jhyancey is a contribution by User:69.25.80.1 [41], which is likely to be bad faith sock puppetry (given the comment "NO SOCK PUPPET HERE" and the previous vote signed by Jhyancey above). Should not be taken into account. -- Edcolins 08:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
KeepI voted "weak keep" last time with the reasoning that this term might be so specialized that traditional sources may not be good enough. There was a link to a law web site in the previous AfD discussion I remember. howch e ng { chat} 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)- It's the very same hyperlink as is given immediately above. Have you read what is being cited as a source here? It is a news report about various court cases that mentions "patent jocks" and "copyright folks" in the same breath. Would you have an article on "copyright folk" on the basis of it? That article is using the word jock as a colloquialism. It is no evidence whatsoever that there is such a concept as a "patent jock", and gives the clear impression that nothing other than patent attorney is meant. Uncle G 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to patent attorney per rodii. howch e ng { chat} 06:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article cites no sources. I, like two of the editors in the original AFD discussion, can find no sources. The article's author, when asked for sources, points to a news report that uses jock colloquially, and that provides nothing whatsoever to support any part of this article; and to an empty web site that appears to be a site for a patent attorney to advertise xyr services under the trade name of "Patent Jock" (notice "Our Rates"). Given that, and the promotional tone of the article, it seems that this article's purpose is to mis-use Wikipedia as an advertising platform for a patent attorney who styles himself a "patent jock". The article is unverifiable, original research, and an apparent advertisement. Delete. Uncle G 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep While the discussion has been interesting, puppets aside, I repeat my earlier posting that I am familiar with this term. I don't know about the rest of the wikipedia users, but I believe the strength of wikipedia is to provide everyone with descriptions of terms that are not only common, but also those that may be somewhat rare and used in certain circles. Otherwise, this tool is useless and fails. I may not be familiar with what terms an astronaut or garbage man uses, but I do know patents. I have worked in Boston, Atlanta, Los Angeles and New York. In each of these locations I have heard patent practitioners use this term in same fashion as the description provides. Just because a websearch provides minimal sources should only be A factor in deciding if this term is a neologism. Baker Botts is a reputable and well-known patent powerhouse, and they used this term in 2002. And I find that just because the author failed to define the term "patent jock" in his article to be a ridiculous argument. One skilled in the art, ahhm...a patent jock, understands this use usage as should a lay reader. I find jyancey to be on point, as is Jfredericks. Do not delete.--
Patentgeek 01:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Personal testimony of pseudonymous Wikipedia editors is not enough. We require sources here. So far you have not only not provided any but also now stated that you find it "ridiculous" that they should be required. If you don't share our principles of verifiability, then you will find another web site elsewhere a better fit to your needs. You could try putting some content on that empty one that I mentioned above. Uncle G 02:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I take the view that Patentgeek may be a sock puppet ( contributions) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account.-- Edcolins 07:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- WEAK KEEP - I know this doesn't actually verify the definition of patent jock, but it DOES show that it is used within the industry. See
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/11/what_five_thing.html, where Dennis Crouch (one of the "notable" patent attorneys listed in the wikipedia listing of "
patent attorney") uses the term patent jockey.--
24.196.237.72 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I take the view that 24.196.237.72 may be a sock puppet ( contributions) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account.-- Edcolins 07:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Changing my vote after reading here and thinking a bit. I believe "patent jock(ey)" is a real term, but don't think it's worthy of inclusion here. What distinguishes "patent jock" from garden variety Patent attorney? I think it's just the term, not the concept, and while that may be of interest to Wiktionary, it's not relevant here. An encyclopedia needs to provide information on concepts. Someone might, I grant, occasionally search this place for patent jock... So: Redirect to patent attorney. rodii 03:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to patent attorney I support Rodii’s suggestion of a redirect to Patent Agent/Attorney. “Patent Jock”, as defined in the article, appears to be a skilled patent agent/attorney. For example:
- By definition, all patent attorneys/agents are registered with a patent granting body, such as the US patent office.
- Patent attorneys/agents are skilled at getting their clients patents. Some are certainly more skilled that others. Very skilled ones receive promotions in corporations, make partner in law firms, or have successful solo practices.
- Patent attorneys/agents can generally recite portions of patent law from memory.
- Patent attorneys/agents have historically been in high demand by both government and private industry.
- Patent attorney/agents come from diverse backgrounds. Most learn their skills from working under the guidance of more senior practitioners. Most also take formal training courses, such as those provided by the Franklin Pierce Law Center.
- Patent attorneys/agents work with their clients to distill the essential features of an invention and draft claims accordingly to build a strong patent portfolio that meets their clients' business needs.
- Many registered patent attorneys are also accomplished patent litigators.-- Nowa 04:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
KEEP NO SOCK PUPPET HERE--What is the goal and purpose of wiki? As a regular wiki reader and user, I think one of wiki's main purposes is providing information to increase knowledge of all. This is exactly what the Patent Jock entry does. How many of you before reading the Patent Jock entry had any knowledge about this subject matter. While the term is well-known in patent attorney circles, this entry conveys this information to all of wiki land. On another, as the main contributor for Patent Jock, I have solicited any assistance from sock puppets, nor have I engaged in that practice. For all of you urging deletion on this article, please see previous post and in particular read the baker botts cited article. (See it here: http://www.bakerbotts.com/9/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=98609148-a306-4faa-8b42-1f0e376f15d0) Jhyancey 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reference to the Baker Botts article and also I thank you for the initial effort you put in composing this article. As someone who has had his own articles marked for deletion, I understand the initial anger of having your efforts tagged as perhaps being “not worthy” of inclusion in Wikipedia. It appears to me that you’ve put a good faith effort into this article in an attempt to make Wikipedia more useful to the general public.
- That’s one of the reasons I’m recommending that “patent jock” be a redirect to patent attorney. At least according to the Baker Botts article, it is a term that’s used as slang for at least patent attorney/agent or perhaps any other person with an interest in patents.
- The article, for example, states:
- While the nation’s patent jocks eagerly await the Court’s decision in Festo, the copyright folks can start clearing space on their fall calendars for Eldred v. Ashcroft (01-618)…
- It appears that “patent jocks” is used as slang for patent attorneys/agents just as “copyright folks” is used as slang for attorneys specializing in copyright law.
- Do you have any objection to a redirect? -- Nowa 14:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- NO REDIRECT You "deletionists" just do not understand. I will re-post patent jock again in the future after preparing additional support to satisfy the desire and craving to remove from wiki a useful entry. For those of you supporting Keep and Redirect, thank you very much, but please take note that only a select few patent attorneys ever make it too Patent Jock status. It is not a slang term, rather it is the highest level of competency all patent attorneys strive for. I will keep entry alive in my sandbox for those who wish to contribute to this useful entry. Jhyancey 15:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)]
- And you really think that helps your case? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 15:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- This looks like a bit of self-promotion to me. What's so special about a third-tier law school [42] like the Franklin Pierce Law Center except that Jhyancey graduated from there? ( [43]) Why is it so important to establish Patent jock as a separate term when one sentence in the Patent attorney article would suffice? I'm sorry, counselor, but you just haven't made the case that your term is really that notable or distinguishable from other classes of patent attorneys; all you've done so far is (increasingly heatedly) assert that. (I'm not a deletionist, by the way. I started out voting keep, but you have actually persuaded me the other way.) rodii 16:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I will keep entry alive in my sandbox for those who wish to contribute to this useful entry. Jhyancey, I think that would be a good idea. -- Nowa 18:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yo "Just zis", the wiki cause should not be about winning or losing and fighting over entries. If the "deletionists" do not take the time to understand the term and assert it's a "gross hoax" then so be it. The purpose of the entry was to edify you and every other wiki user about Patent Jocks. Have you ever heard of Judge Giles Rich, P.F. Federico, Herbert Schwartz, The Telephone Cases, or Doctrine of Equivalents? Patent Jocks know much about these terms. Thus, the purpose of this entry. Jhyancey 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - No Redirect I'm changing my vote slightly to "Delete - No Redirect". I maintain "delete" since I've not seen a preponderance of evidence to indicate that "patent jock" is either a formal or informal designation that is commonly aspired to by registered US patent agents or attorneys or the patent agents or attorneys of any other jurdisdiction. I change my vote from redirect to "no redirect" in respect for the original author's assertion that "patent jock" is not slang for patent attorney. -- Nowa 18:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I also was temporarily inclined to change my vote to "Redirect" since it appeared patent jock(ey) might be slang for patent attorney. We delete articles as "non-notable neologism" every day which are far more verifiable and less vanity than this. I maintain my Delete vote and recommend the author of the article copy it to his user page until he can build a credible case for the phrase. If the author is a lawyer, or knows lawyers, it should be easy to build a credible case and survive AFD next time. — Quarl ( talk) 2005-12-31 00:10 Z
- Delete This lengthy discussion has provoked far more heat than light, but it seems clear to me that even if the phrase is used, it is not of sufficient currency to merit its own article, and in the single case presented as evidence of its existence, it could be an on-the-spot invention by newswriters. And there are enough sockpuppets here to fill a locker room. D e nni ☯ 04:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak/Delete This wiki term is less about patents and more about the term "jock." I'm a patent attorney, and I have heard the term used in conversation, but only in the same way one would call a Washington staffer a "policy wonk," i.e., someone who's really into a particular intellectual subject, and measures his prowess according to their knowledge in that field. List under "jock"? -- Phlaemenbicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.231.134 ( talk • contribs)
- No vote This link was posted to a patent law board, presumably to draw support for the article. However, patent attorneys are generally too smart to bother with such things as the foolishness that is the wikipedia community. Baseless accusations of being socks is second only to baseless accusations of POV. Baseless accusations of being a hoax is a new one to me, but I gave up on this place a long, long time ago. Patent attorneys have both law degrees and technical degrees. As such, they tend to adopt techie terms -- such as "jock" (see the jargon file. That being said, the article, in its current form, is crap. Mentioning Franklin Pierce is pure self-promotion as it isn't even one of the top three, as reported by U.S. News & World Report. Not all patent attorneys are jocks, only the ones who (1) know caselaw in and out, (2) have a huge patent grant rate, and (3) deal primarily in patent preparation. I have never heard the term applied to a litigator, as stated in the article. Patent prosecuters (of which I am one) are geeks and patent jocks are the geekiest of the geeks. But what do I know, I'm merely a POV sock perpetrating a hoax. 71.129.147.6 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- how long must this go on? lets get on with it and delete it, must we waste any more time and resources on this useless entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.104.28 ( talk • contribs)
- this article sucks, doesn't it? even Donald Chisum would vote against this, but who is Just Giz, and what does he/she do during free time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.70.190 ( talk • contribs)
- Delete, or at most redirect... seems slang, and from the debate I've not seen a single source for this thing. -- Raistlin 23:35, 5 January 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 (part of a group of mutually-referential non-notable entities...) -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
2002: The Year we 'Came Back'
Either a hoax, or so far in the future as to be non-encyclopaedic -- SGBailey 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- SGBailey 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn WP:Not a crystal ball -- Pboyd04 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as above, WP isn't a catalogue of future events. --
(aeropagitica)
00:12, 30 December 2005 (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 05:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Bigmouthmedia
Article on obscure internet marketing company void of encyclopedic value which reads as an official site and shamefull spam. Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine nor Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider Mecanismo | Talk 10:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Josh Parris # : 12:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Company has won numerous awards and has been covered in the press. -- JJay 22:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howch e ng { chat} 21:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete alexa rank of 63,994 for their website most of the listings on google appear to be business listing sites. -- Pboyd04 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advert. David | Talk 22:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete article reads as promotional copy that I would expect to find on their website, not in an encyclopædia article. --
(aeropagitica)
00:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Delete, although it may have won several prices (one stated in a notable site), it fails WP:CORP. -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 30 December 2005 (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 after 2 weeks of voting -- Ichiro 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Expressed emotion
Dicdef. Delete. Parallel or Together ? 13:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, can become more than a dicdef. Or merge to emotional expression. Aapo Laitinen 14:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howch e ng { chat} 21:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I can't see this being more than a dicdef. -- Pboyd04 22:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Contextualise This article needs to be placed in context; there are no categories with which I can relate the topic to an appropriate academic discipline. More depth and detail with literature citations is required for this to be an enclyclopædia article. --
(aeropagitica)
00:21, 30 December 2005 (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 redirect -- Ichiro 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Biological phenomenon
I think this article should redirect to biology, but there is some debate on its talk page so I have put it up for deletion discussion. — Brim 14:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect works for me. Delete otherwise. Topic is already covered better on life. — RJH 16:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I feel something under this heading must appear somewhere, may be under
biology. However I do not agree that the topic is adequately covered under
life. —
Charlie 08:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC).
- I said better, not adequately. :-P — RJH
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howch e ng { chat} 21:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect This page adds nothing to the understanding of life or biological systems. Redirect it to one or other of the pages where WP users can read a more comprehensive overview of the subject. --
(aeropagitica)
00:30, 30 December 2005 (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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Gourmet Guy
Idiosyncratic non-topic AppleSeed 15:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Josh Parris # : 00:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howch e ng { chat} 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Paper Mario. -- JJay 22:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the language is colloquial and the subject can be covered in
Paper Mario. --
(aeropagitica)
00:32, 30 December 2005 (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 -- Ichiro 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Dangerous Dreams
Doesn't follow the requirements for bands. Jporcaro 17:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Josh Parris # : 00:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:MUSIC -- one sentence does not an article make -- recording on nn label doesn't enhance notability to the needed level for inclusion here. B.Wind 15:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The band meets WP:MUSIC - from having gone on tour - so their album isn't eligible for deletion imo. Stifle 21:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howch e ng { chat} 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Stifle. -- JJay 22:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, or nom the band for deletion too. -- SarekOfVulcan 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, either delete the band and their EP page too or keep the whole lot. It can all be expanded upon by a knowledgable party. --
(aeropagitica)
00:35, 30 December 2005 (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 concensus -- Ichiro 19:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Brigance
Sounds like an advert Compu ter Joe 19:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Undecided - Possibly a notable researcher in his field, but it needs to moved, cleaned up and sourced. It got kept awhile back on an AfD but the article has not had a single non-vandalous edit since then. Like everything else, it just sits there. FCYTravis 22:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howch e ng { chat} 21:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason given to delete- please add link to previous AfD. -- JJay 22:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment There's a confusion here between the man and his system. Article at least needs renaming. Previous Afd is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigance
Dlyons493 Talk 22:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename and expand upon system in order to differentiate from the creator. --
(aeropagitica)
00:38, 30 December 2005 (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. Mo0[ talk] 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Frank Ochieng
Seems to be squeaking on the border of notability, though more on the side of non-notability. His official site has no Alexa Rank, and a Google PageRank of 4/10. -- D e ath phoenix 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Can't anyone be an online film critic? Delete unless someone makes a case for this. -- JJay 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No Alexa rank = no notability for his website, around which all his "fame" must circulate, by definition.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 23:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of evidence that anyone but Ochieng cares what Ochieng things about anything. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 23:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Very weak keep. Seems to be pretty prominent, or at least prolific, as a movie reviewer -- I get 40,000 google hits, and see for example this page, where he's one of three reviewers listed (on the other hand, that site doesn't appear to be well known). bikeable (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- NPOV The language used appears to talk Frank up. There is no reason for a film critic not be mentioned in WP but their contribution to film criticism should be mentioned, not just their presence on panels, committees, etc. The substance of his criticism is of note. If there is nothing distinctive about his opinions to justify an article, delete. --
(aeropagitica)
00:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Qualified Ochieng's appearances on WBZ radio have proved popular over the years. He has met the qualifications to be part of Rotten Tomatoes, MovieEye, SF Crowsnest, etc. Frank's reviews are witty and informative, and he's well-respected amongst
other film critics. As someone who has interviewed him numerous times on my own radio show (WMWM Salem MA), I can testify his knowledge and insights on film and television media do qualify him for WP inclusion. (raccoonradio)
- Qualified Frank Ochieng in my opinion deserves to be part of Wikipedia. He has been a major contributor to many on-line, and various print publications over the years as expressed (above). I have been reading Mr. Ochieng's work over many years and there are few writers like him in-depth, informative, and more than qualified to be part of your site.
I can also say this as well because of his numerous appearances on my TV interview program 'A Time To Review' on Brookline Access Television. He is a great writer and he has proven this because I have worked with him personally (The Voicemakers). Daniel Berman, Newton Magazine
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge -- Ichiro 19:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Henry L. Valance
While Morgan was notable, I can't see that this article can ever be made encyclopedic. There was no body recovered (the body that was recovered was identified as someone else), this confession was 20-30 years after the fact, and wasn't published for another 20 years after that? DeleteMerge.
SarekOfVulcan 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Very interesting info. Should be Merged and Redirected to
William Morgan (anti-Mason). --
JJay 22:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- If the info can be substantiated beyond this single reference, I could go along with that.-- SarekOfVulcan 22:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Could you be a bit more specific about what you are contesting? I'm not sure I follow you. --
JJay 00:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The book reporting the deathbed confession wasn't published for 20 years after the confession, if I'm following everything correctly. If it had been more widely reported, I'd feel better about leaving it in. Am I making sense yet?--
SarekOfVulcan 01:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, the confession was published shortly after Valance's death in 1848.
[56]. It has since become part of the case, discussed in later pamphlets, newspapers and every book on Morgan that I checked. It is part of the historical record surrounding the Morgan case and can not be ignored. Of course, that does not mean that the confession was true and/or even took place. That is a completely different problem. But Valance should be mentioned on the Morgan page --
JJay 01:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- That removes one of my main objections: changing from Delete to Merge. Thanks for doing the extra legwork. -- SarekOfVulcan 01:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. I can do a basic merge after the AfD, if no one does it first. -- JJay 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, the confession was published shortly after Valance's death in 1848.
[56]. It has since become part of the case, discussed in later pamphlets, newspapers and every book on Morgan that I checked. It is part of the historical record surrounding the Morgan case and can not be ignored. Of course, that does not mean that the confession was true and/or even took place. That is a completely different problem. But Valance should be mentioned on the Morgan page --
JJay 01:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The book reporting the deathbed confession wasn't published for 20 years after the confession, if I'm following everything correctly. If it had been more widely reported, I'd feel better about leaving it in. Am I making sense yet?--
SarekOfVulcan 01:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have tidied the page up a little, as it seemed to have a pretty strong anti mason bias. Having said that, I'm not gonna vote cos I know nothing about the case, and therefor can't comment on it.
Jcuk 00:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, nobody knows anything else about it, and that's why I'm AfDing it. -- SarekOfVulcan 00:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge If Valance had a life of note it may be worth keeping a page about him. If his only noteworthy act was a deathbed confession, merge the page with that of the life of the person whom he claims to have killed. --
(aeropagitica)
00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or merge Clearly not noteworthy, and the facts of the Morgan case have never conclusively come to light. Having done some research, there isn't even a real consensus on what happened in the first place. MSJapan 05:20, 31 December 2005 (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. — JIP | Talk 07:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The Voicemakers
This was originally nominated for a speedy. Another creation of Frank Ochieng, this fanzine is definitely not notable. -- D e ath phoenix 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete not a notable publication. --
(aeropagitica)
00:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --
Ichiro 19:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nomination FredOrAlive 00:49, 8 January 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 -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 21:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Jane Alderman
Either a hoax or relating to a book to be published so far in the future as to be non-encyclopaedic. Part of a series of articles added by Janet6 ( talk · contribs). -- Stephen Deken 21:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete (If the book gets published, include a line about this character in the book's entry) -- SGBailey 22:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn WP:Not a crystal ball -- Pboyd04 22:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this doesn't appear to be a notable biographical entry. --
(aeropagitica)
00:48, 30 December 2005 (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 Redirect' to Singularity_(operating_system). - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft_Singularity
this article is a clone of "Singularity_(operating_system)" Dsda 22:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Singularity_(operating_system) no need to merge since there is no new content. -- Pboyd04 22:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per above.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per Pboyd04. -- ReyBrujo 03:28, 30 December 2005 (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 -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Duders.com
Was tagged for speedy for being an attack page, but that clearly does not apply. However, with 96 users, fails WP:WEB in a big way. howch e ng { chat} 22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete was about to make the afd myself. WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete "greatest webpage on planet earth" if only he hadn't said that this could be speedied. -- Pboyd04 22:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. We ought to have websites covered under CSD A7 as well. --
Soothing
R 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete fails to assert criteria for being the greatest website on earth. Endomion 23:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the article appears to be a troll. None of its claims are substantiated. The language is partisan instead of neutral. --
(aeropagitica)
00:53, 30 December 2005 (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 merge to Reykjavík, then redirect. Mind matrix 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Nightlife in Reykjavík
Article is very unencyclopedic.
Wikipedia is not a travel guide.
Soothing
R 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Reykjavík. - FrancisTyers 22:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per above -- Revolución ( talk) 00:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge the page can become a section of the main article on Reykjavik. --
(aeropagitica)
00:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into the main article for Reykjavík - ( Erebus555 13:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC))
- Why would you want it deleted? I'm glad someone wrote it. Merge it into the main Reykjavik page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.220.190 ( talk • contribs)
- Article should be a subsection of Reykjavík. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.51.178 ( talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn after re-write. Mind matrix 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Neck crank
The term "crank" is not sufficiently developed in the context in which this is used and is currently address in Hold (grappling) Rorybowman 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This concept is discussed in a more thorough manner in the wrestling and martial arts sections. --
(aeropagitica)
01:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per Rorybowman and (aeropagitica) -- Quarl 01:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I can write an article about neck cranks(neck locks). Probably 2-3 paragraphs with a picture. I've got a a link to a study about torsional pressure applied to the neck and spine. -- -Marcus- 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Finished I've written a short article about this subject. I won't remove the "nominated for deletion notice", until someone endorses my writing. -- -Marcus- 12:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP: I am the one who originally suggested the delete, but this article addresses my original concern. New article is substantive and about as precise as the subject and current usage allows. Rorybowman 16:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notable, well-known technique. Article as been improved. Shawnc 03:24, 2 January 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. DS 13:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Myrix
A fictional world, but one not known by Google. A search for Myrix reveals no relevant results, and searching for the word in conjunction with "chaos theory" or "butterfly effect" gets zippo. Unverifiable. howch e ng { chat} 23:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. "Myrix is also the setting for the as-of-yet unnamed book series featuring Cyick T. Jerical. After six years, only the prequal story, Wait For It has a completed rough draft, but hopefully more will follow soon." Author removed my CSD tag, but what the heck, AfD is more definitive. bikeable (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The page is worthless without a published book that can be used as a citation. It reads as nothing more than the authors' attempt at ego-massage. --
(aeropagitica)
01:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Otherwise, I have a story to tell about the fantasy kingdom of Myownlandia. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 21:47, 30 December 2005 (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 05:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Cold weapon
Unusual term not in general use. Single circular reference to brass knuckles. Rorybowman 23:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete google search just reveals fictional weapons and basically weapons that are cold, not the way the term is used here. If someone can demonstrate this is real then it should be transwikied to wiktionary. -- Pboyd04 23:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, unverifiable. -- Quarl 01:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't appear to be a recognised term in Google or EB. If a literary citation can be supplied, suggest turning page in to Redirect. --
(aeropagitica)
01:12, 30 December 2005 (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.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The Solomon Key
This is soothsaying, speculation, maybe even "original research", but not an encyclopedic article with actual facts. Please come again when the book has actually been released or any actual facts can be reported. zerofoks 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The book is a real matter, and yes speculation is involved as the book is not released, however there is information on this page we can confirm. we know the book is about the founding fathers of our country, in which it is confirmed many were active freemasons. why should speculation not count as information. there is much speculation over many things. speculation breeds thought, thought breeds knowledge. The announcement should be made, and this page should be kept for those who until then, are interested in hearing the possability of this book. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 12.73.12.105 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep It is very stupid to delete this. It is very interesting and is helpful for people who want to know what Dan Brown is up to. Whoever wants to delete this entry is wasting their time. Peace out. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.46.155.141 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep No need to delete the article, speculation can be removed, and actual facts added as they appear. Qutezuce 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- If you delete all the speculation there is now, there won't be anything left. -- zerofoks 00:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- At the very least you would have that it is a future book by Dan Brown, which is already enough for an article that will grow in the future. Secondly, it should be pointed out that much of the speculation is not Wikipedians speculating, but speculation that has already been recorded elsewhere, and hence is verifiable. Finally, there are many facts, the relation to Kryptos is fact (the coords of Kryptos were on the dust jacket of his previous book), the web quest is all fact as it comes from the publishers website, etc. Whether these relate to The Solomon Key is debatable, but outside sources have made the connection, not Wikipedians speculating. Qutezuce 00:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- None of that is "fact". It's pure media hype generated for something that doesn't even exist, yet. I see no reason how Wikipedians should report on this in a NPOV-manner suitable for an encyclopedia. And no, you would not have at the very least the "fact" that the book will be out in 2006 because you don't know it will be. It might be, but then again, it might be not. It's just a plan. -- zerofoks 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I never said anything about 2006, I said it is a future book by Dan Brown. The term "future book" obviously doesn't mean that the book is sure to come out, as no on can predict the future, Dan Brown could die suddenly and the book would not get published, but right now he is alive and his intention is to publish the book in the future. The publisher may be trying to hype the book with a Web Quest, but it is still a fact that a Web Quest existed. Qutezuce 01:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the article is not speculation itself but a record of the speculation of others. I imagine that the book will be published whether or not Dan Brown is alive to see it. In the event of its non-appearance, the content of the article can refer to the book and media hype in a neutral way. --
(aeropagitica)
01:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:Not_a_crystal_ball not a published book yet. -- Pboyd04 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete WP should document things that exist in real life or in a fictional setting, not things that do not exist. Endomion 02:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Tough luck for Category:2006 books then.... -- zerofoks 03:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per above. This is real fiction. -- JJay 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. As long as information on the page is drawn from other sources, it is valid. For example, Dan Brown has hinted at potential topics of the book in occasional lectures and interviews. There is huge public interest in the book, and those hints have been covered by news organizations such as Wired and the Wall Street Journal. It is perfectly valid for this article to provide a collection of Brown's hints and other speculations, as long as their source or reference is mentioned. Elonka 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep WP:Not_a_crystal_ball states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." This has verifiable information, and I'm sure a book by Dan Brown merits as significant interest. Metsfanmax 17:06, 03 January 2005 (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.