The result was no consensus with some strong keep arguments - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-noticeable. Intangible 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfDs:
The result was deleted as apparent hoax - the first complaint about it being unreachable was on the same day the article was created. DS 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly notable and now seemingly dead site. The site was supposedly "hacked" sometime before 23:34, 27 June 2006 but as of today (18 days later) it is still in a "hacked" state? I'm beginning to be inclined to think "hoaxed" state would be a more accurate description. With the exception of one screenshot mention in an Urdu language BBC blog, the site appears to have never garnered much directly pertinent notoriety. (→Netscott) 14:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedy close - wait until Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_12#Economic_totalitarianism is finished. No point in discussing this in more than one place. Dr Zak 13:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-noticeable. Intangible 10:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was speedily deleted ((CSD A7 (non-notable group))). Alphachimp talk 06:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. (Contested prod). Their albums are not listed on Amazon [7]. The JPStalk to me 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<extreme personal attack rant removed from here as well - User:Zoe|(talk) 01:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)>--Repmart 01:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<personal attack removed from here, too - User:Zoe|(talk) 01:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)>.--Repmart 01:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following three postings were deleted in the recent vandalism. -- H·G (words/works) 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
removed rant from blocked user. -- H·G (words/works) 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable band. Fabricationary 02:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the repeated vandalism of this page by User:Repmart and his various sock puppets, I have sprotected the page. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 03:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. (Contested PROD). No results on Amazon so has not released an album under his own name on a major label. Google test poor. The claim to notability ("the son of...") is rather weak. The JPStalk to me 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<extreme personal attack rant removed - User:Zoe|(talk) 01:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)>--Repmart 01:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blocked user's rant removed -- H·G (words/works) 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the repeated vandalism of this page by User:Repmart and his various sock puppets, I have sprotected the page. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 16:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a db-bio, but it was changed to a prod with a by Xaosflux without explanation. That was replaced by 24.205.26.151 without comment or further edits.
This article is apparently WP:VANITY and a not-notable WP:BIO. There are a few claims to notability, but none of them check out as true. (eg, people 50's most beautiful; she's not on the list).
I guess the bottom line, then, is that it is WP:HOAX. Mikeblas 00:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable vanity bio; only 65 Google hits; autobiography. Mark998 01:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedily deleted. enochlau (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains almost no content and no context in which to place that content. Additionally, the edit history does not give the impression that the article will be improved. A single user has added all of the content to the page, and appears to be an account set up for advertising purposes as the user name is identical to the name of the website the page links to. Dekkanar 01:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect. Mostly Rainy 10:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the article totally duplicates the Hinduism in the United Kingdom article (part of the "Hinduism by country" series), and advances original research POV arguments about the use of the "British Asian" ethnic label which would fit much better inside the British Asian article. If that weren't enough, the article also makes sweeping one-sided POV arguments (backed up by cherry-picked blog comments and unrelated news stories). Anirvan 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the deletion proposal
The result was Delete. Mostly Rainy 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An utterly non-notable group of nerds - sorry, hackers - whose article fails all criteria of WP:BIO, in particular no multiple independent reliable coverage (the sole source is Slashdot, which doesn't meet WP:RS). Damned if I know why, but I tried searching on Factiva, and came up with nothing. I'm sure they get a lot of Google hits, but who cares? Delete. Sam Blanning(talk) 01:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why Slashdot does not meet WP:RS. Please could you point out why Slashdot is not a reliable source. Keep Via strass 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability or non-notability aside (and I lean towards non-notable) of the subject, this article itself is a wreck. I vote delete until someone is willing to give this group more than just lip-service; perhaps then we can see whether they belong in the encyclopedia. --66.92.130.57 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consequently any nomination based on non-notability is abusive. The fact that this AfD nomination is being ballot-stuffed by IP-based users who have no other edits on record is further evidence of this abuse. Via strass 00:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
= 20:35:59<@HedgeMage> We are not releasing our suspect list, but we have some reasons to expect that bantown or GNAA may have been involved.
Via strass 20:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events"
http://www.zone-h.org/content/view/13778/31/ - check
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijacki.html - check
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/01/20/74662_HNlivejournalsecuritythreat_1.html - check
"Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?"
http://www.google.com/search?q=bantown - check, 30000+ hits on my screen
This quest for deletion here (and at the GNAA article) is against Wikipedia's own policies based on what I suspect is admins having a negative view of the participating group that is covered. I could care less personally whether this article stays or go based on the content. However, based on WP's own rules removing this one in this manner would be a flagrant disregard of our own policies, in my opionion, for "not liking them". Any such deletion should be fought tooth and nail on that criteria.
Would anyone care to try and demonstrate why any of the conditions I list above are not met? Everything of this nature needs to be kept in check. Based on what I listed, I can't see any reason to force a deletion except based on the personal POV of certain admins/editors. rootology 00:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was armpit. DS 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, unbelievably crufty indiscriminate collection of information. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - and Aaronproot, you don't need to stay if you don't like it here. DS 17:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nn actress. Her IMDb page lists consists of only two guest appearances on television shows. Only 175 Google hits. FreeKresge 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 10:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soul Cloud and Alone Together are two albums by the artist Joseph Patrick Moore, whose page is also going to be deleted, that I originally listed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Canoe Records along with Decade 1996-2005 (which is listed with the Blue Canoe Records deletion) after (suspected) sockpuppetry by the record exec for the non-notable digital record label to create these articles to push her artist towards notability. Both of these articles should be deleted because they are non-notable albums by a non-notable artist. Be wary of votes by Bobj7 and Sallyroberts28, as they are suspected to be sockpuppets of the Blue Canoe Records executive producer, and the original authors of these albums' articles, respectively, as well as IPs in the 69.164.*.* range, as they are IPs related to this sockpuppeteer. Ryulong 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is non-notable per WP:BIO. Prod tag was removed by anonymous user. ... discospinster talk 02:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Grandmasterka 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is just a radom list of star wars technology with no useful infromation and it also needs to renamend. It would just be easier(and beter) to delete this article and start over form scratch. Scott3 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we deleted every article which was interesting to a niche audience, we'd delete half of wikipedia. Personally, I'm not a Star Wars fan (see this article for reasons why [10] ) so I know the repeated insinuation made in this discussion that not only fanboys are interested in keeping this article. Lurker 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedy Delete as recreation of Everywhere Girl.--Chaser T 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May be a non-notable model. Lacking in notability and verifiability. Google gets 258 results for her name. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Withdrawn from AfD process by CJCurrie. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd has been withdrawn. CJCurrie 03:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until recently, this page was a harmless redirect. Now, it's a POV/OR rant arguing that recent advances in gay rights are an affront to religious liberty. (Click here for the changeover.) I don't any compelling need for an article on a topic this subjective. CJCurrie 02:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing the afd, with a recommendation that the page be radically rewritten. CJCurrie 02:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also think there might be too much LBGT stuff me and Deet have been arguing the point for a bit today he decide to put his piece up it was a surprise hehe.
I can prove what I say in Religious freedom regarding homosexuality views in Canada User:Ansolin/Status of religious freedom in Canada but wasn’t ready to post it yet .
Canada is special in that it supports religious schools and the church objects to same sex marriage’s so I feel there should be a section on that
I have no problem with deleting any of the bullet points you like
I do have a problem with keeping haskett she was not acting from OFFICAL church view (I get that a lot of people think that god say hate gays but that not the current and office view).Ansolin 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is what happens when the crystal ball fails. It's an album track announced as an upcoming single release back in February 2006; as of July, nothing has materialized. I think most people would agree that any momentum that once existed for the release is now gone. Unint 02:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Current consensus is that malls are not inherently notable... We could use a guideline to determine what makes a shopping mall notable, but I doubt this would meet the vast majority of editors' standards. Grandmasterka 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another mall with no claim to notability. Website shows the usual rundown of retailers. We already have an article on cookie-cutter malls: shopping malls. ~ trialsanderrors 02:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 03:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entry is not encyclopedic, but is an advertisement. Much of the text has been lifted directly from the product's website. Paul Fisher 03:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 03:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article defines a neologism. Few google hits. No dictionary hits that I can find. It clearly describes something that likely should have a name, but it isn't up to Wikipedia to create and legitimize the name for it. I don't really have an opinion as to whether the article should be deleted, moved or merged, but it shouldn't stay the way it is. Rather than vote delete immediately, I'd rather see what the community thinks, hence an AfD rather than a prod. -- cmh 03:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to Blue Line (Chicago Transit Authority). --Ezeu 09:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When this article was created on July 11, the cause of incident was unknown, and some suspected terrorism, especially as it happended just at the time of the 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings. But now, the cause of the incident known; a derailment, and there were no casualties. So now, this incident is not noteworthy or encyclopedic - derailments happen in cities around the world all the time. Ten years from now, few are going to care about this; even ten days from now, few are going to care about it. And so, this is just a news event, not an encyclopedic topic Rye1967 03:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was spam. DS 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. Article creator has been spamming hair laser treatment page also with links to company home page. Rob 03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in question. Not much came up in google. --NMChico24 03:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was speedily deleted according to CSD A7 (non-notable person). Alphachimp talk 06:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable individual. Prod removed. The notability claims are that he ran for Mayor of Parma, Ohio, that he is a district manager for Farmers Insurance and that he has had discrimination complaints filed against him. Ghits = 0 for "Paul Anthony Drockton Jr." [16], 0 for "Paul Drockton Jr." [17], and 14 unique for "Paul Drockton", of which 8 relate to the individual in question; 6 are from web forums. -- Samir धर्म 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It sure seems like we could have a good article on this though, if someone is willing to spend some time on it... Grandmasterka 04:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary Definition, WP:WINAD --EazieCheeze 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Grandmasterka 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced POV-laden essay. Part of a campaign by WikiRoo (talk • contribs) aka WikiDoo (talk • contribs) to insert pretty much the same disparaging material across multiple articles. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiRoo 04:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with this material. It is fact based and straight written. Wikipedia is not a source for maintaining government propaganda to mislead the public about how things are or are not. If there is editing required then I don't see any reason why someone can't add possitive things to say if this is seen as all negative by anyone. I am sure people see this as balanced factual information.[reply]
WikiRoo 12:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Looks like some people here are getting all their friends together to post in favour of deleting this article. Someone once said something about protesting too much! I have more details and information to post about the uniqueness of Regional Government in Ontario Canada and will provide links and other reference material to augment this article. I don't see what all the fuss is about. But since the Regions altogether spend close to $10 Billion dollars and therefore a lot of people are dependants on them it may explain some of the insistance against publishing negative details. The same holds true with lack of press about their activities.[reply]
WikiRoo 15:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Regional Governments in Ontario are considered by many to be the most corrupt type of government in the world for being outside of public scrutiny hidding behind a false democratic front. The network of families and individuals pilfering from the $10 Billion dollars anually is well known and documented by people that have dealt with them. They use these billions of dollars in public spending to advance their interest. The people that are dependant on the corruption of Regional Government, which includes many professionals and legal systems will do anything to preserve the status quo and keep from general public knowledge the basic structural problems that permit their form of corruption, favoratism and encumbancy to by maintained. I am surprised that we don't yet have hundreds of posters comming here to ask for this article to be deleted.[reply]
WikiRoo 18:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC) One of the problems with on-line editing people can be anywhere or anyone and use proxy's so everyone fighting to delete this could be all one person or a small group of friends. I could do the same and post 1000 votes to keep this... but I won't fight dirty like these (alledged) different people are doing over this benign article[reply]
WikiRoo 21:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC) This persecution of everything I add to wiki is rediculous. I think those people should be bammed permanenltly for stalking and vandalism.[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 04:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only 200 google hits [18] and many don't seem to be related. I just noticed that it was written by Butterfest, so this is looking like some pretty blatant spam to me Irongargoyle 04:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mostly Rainy 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Politician of little note. Mayor of a small town in greater Toronto. Ghits: [19] --NMChico24 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's put it like this: whom aside from the people in the town care about her? What has she done outside the town that has made her noted by "outsiders," has she done anything within the town to make her notable? I am serious when I purpose this, it's a serious issue that needs to be approached. What exactly gives her reason for the article to remain? Yanksox 04:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedy Delete by Deltabeignet as a copyright violation. Yanksox 05:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research and possible copyvio. Naconkantari 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was speedily deleted (CSD A7 (non-notable person)) Alphachimp talk 06:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Politician of little note. Ghits: [22] --NMChico24 04:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 05:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a game-guide. GameFaqs was created for those that are looking for a game-guide. Also, see the current discussion in the AfD for another Halo related game-guide Dionyseus 05:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 05:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website. I made this article when I was very enthusiastic about the site and I now know that it's not important enough for Wikipedia. The QBasicJedi 05:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (CSD G7) – Gurch 18:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This company fails WP:CORP and may be spam. Their only news coverage is a bunch of press releases. There's nothing in the first 40 google results.--Chaser T 05:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is spam. I created this page simply to detail this consulting firm. It is not an advertisement masquerading as an article, and the text maintains a neutral point of view. While I cannot currently find information to support compliance with WP:CORP, this is a major company that, due to its nature, has little public mention (e.g., Google results). However, its development on major online presences such as www.cancer.org add support for this article's existence. Mgiuffrida 05:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, and major kudos to Joe Beaudoin Jr. for cleaning this up and referencing it all. Grandmasterka 06:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor porn actress, article prominantly advertises her web site, no idication of notability. Wikipedia is not the IAFD.
brenneman {L} 05:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 06:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
article taken care of by other sources Hornplease 05:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was spamtastic. Grandmasterka 06:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotional spam for a web hosting company. Fails WP:VSCA -- Netsnipe (Talk) 05:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was keep. Nominator withdraws nomination. Alphachimp talk 06:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa rank of 2.7 million fails WP:WEB. Google serach could not yield any instance of being mentioned by a non-trivial work, much less multiple ones. Prod/Prod2 removed by author. Hbdragon88 05:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 06:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article for a faculty-wide only university student organisation. Google hits for "Management Information Systems Association" + "Simon Fraser University": 149. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). -- Netsnipe (Talk) 06:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as ((db-author)). -- RHaworth 05:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PROD tag removed, bringing for discussion. There's no reference to this on Google at all; I suspect it's a hoax, and I'd suggest it definitely has verifiability issues. The editor, after removing the PROD tag, placed a comment in the article stating this institution conveniently has little Web presence. Also note that the creator of the article has uploaded an image that, in one edit, states the creator of the image is Joshua Wells. Delete Tony Fox (speak) 06:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV. Appears to be a marketing blurb. Ideogram 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedily deleted for copyvio. enochlau (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio spam. This is a non-notable online radio station (Alexa ranking ~270,000). Their biggest claim to fame is being featured on the World of Warcraft website - not the most impressive credential. Also, make sure the many redirects are deleted, too.Wickethewok 06:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 08:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None notable e-fed, (a site where write roleplays and people pretend to be wrestlers) Englishrose 06:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its helpful and relevant to fans of E-Wrestling, a growing community on the internet. As the biggest E-Fed, it serves as an example to other [User:KlintKastaway]
Keep. Cause Stone Cold said so. Also because it shows an extensive history of the federation and serves as an example for others. The IWC takes interest in this hobby and there's no strong reason for its deletion. --CaptainLice 19:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC):::*Note. User's first edit Englishrose 19:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: There is a large group of people who take interest in this hobby, and this federation has been around for a long enough time to make it notable to those in the Internet Wrestling Community. Everything on this Wiki can be verified. People who see Professional Wrestling for the art form it is, should see this for what it is: an art form.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Revorg Restam (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 July 2006:::*Note. User's first edit
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was prodded, prod removed, nn notable boat, failed Ghits, advertising John Lake 07:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded. This is a well written article, but there's no indication it meets WP:BIO. The person is non-notable.--Chaser T 07:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC) withdrawn, though I understand that the AfD should continue when there are other votes to delete.--Chaser T 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have now incorporated some of the additional information into the article, as suggested by Wine Guy. In fact, this whole process has actually been a blessing in disguise. I first intended to create the article based on his wargaming work alone; I didn't know what had happened to Willis since the seemingly abrupt end of his wargame designing. In the process of checking "what links here" I found him linked from some RPG articles, and was able to put that into what I was writing. And having to defend him against PROD and AfD has forced me to turn up more information, which has now gone into the entry as well.
Since AfD started, I have found four additional Wikipedia articles where he was already mentioned but not wikilinked; I have now linked him, sometimes finding someone else to link, too. I added a sentence into the Call of Cthulhu page, noting Willis' assumption of the game after its original creator left. I looked at the Chaosium entry, which I found to be very Stafford-centric, and put in a mention for Willis and the other designers whose names I had run across. As a result, I think there is now a healthy number of other Wikipedia articles linking to him, and that's before any entries have been created for any of his wargames! --Groggy Dice 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to meet notability requirements of WP:WEB. Also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Chrisd87 15:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft and unencyclopedic. The source given lists almost exactly the same information, so the link can be added to the Naruto article if necessary hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft and unencyclopedic. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedy delete per creator.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
unencyclopediac WP:OR and possibly copyvio from student handbook. Prodded and removed by anon without comment. Wikipedia is not a student guidbook. The university already as a perfectly good website for this Peripitus (Talk) 07:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable band. Originally speedied which provoked User:Uk metal and User:Xsharksx into becoming abusive Nuttah68 07:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article lacking content about a non-notable web directory, maybe speedy. Wine Guy Talk 08:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep serving in State Senate satisfies WP:BIO Eluchil404 00:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments for inclusion and expansion: More articles on politicians running for office, be it a municipal race, a national legislature, or an executive position, are important. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is the fact that it contains current and up to date information as well as obscure information that is hard to find in other places. But the key is: information.
This article's subject is hardly borderline (see below for more on the concept and controversy of notability), to say so is highly subjective. Her inclusion needs to be objective and not a political ad. The simple fact that this subject is a credible candidate in an election makes her anything but borderline on the notability scales.
Elections are the lifeblood of the political process of a republic. Adding in the accomplishments of this subject (youngest woman elected to AZ Senate) and the case of calling her borderline makes even less sense.--Utahredrock 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from nomination for deletion: This article's subject is a borderline non-notable person. Gabrielle Giffords is currently only a candidate for the US House of Representatives, not actually a current politician. She was the youngest woman elected to the Arizona Senate, but I don't think that this makes her notable enough for inclusion. DarthVader 08:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A neologism, coined by a judge Nuttah68 08:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was speedy delete. The removal of a speedy tag is a problem sometimes. You can try ((Drmspeedy)) next time. Unlike proposed deletion, an article qualifies for speedy deletion even if someone objects. However, an objector can explain why he or she thinks the article does not meet the speedy delete criteria on the talk page. -- Kjkolb 09:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This biography fails to assert the notability of its subject. BigNate37T·C 08:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedy delete nonsense by User:Pgk. Just zis Guy you know? 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the words of the creating editor, "This is a proposed idea by me, not a real planet made of cardbaord". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so this editor's plans for a cardboard planet for "50 billion angry asians" is not a legitimate article. I've proposed the article for deletion; my prod was removed. BigNate37T·C 09:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Delete copyvio - it's a press release copied & pasted. I'm sure it is. Just zis Guy you know? 15:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This company may not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles. The article appears to exist solely to promote the company and does not follow Wikipedia style or NPOV recommendations. At this moment it has been edited by only one editor (excluding myself) who has ignored a request to re-write the article more appropriately. Alf Boggis 09:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I am discounting the delete and merge votes, which are illegal. As for the straight merge minority, they fail to make a case as to WP:NOT. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely detailed cruft about a bunch of "Pokémon" that are just placeholders in the game code, accessible only with a cheat device or a short circuit (really). There's nothing in this article that could possibly be sourced anywhere (the only source is a particularly bad Bulbapedia article), and I can't imagine how this could possibly be encyclopedic. Pokémon is notable, but every single glitch associated with it ever is not.
I came across these while working on merging the wholly crufty and unsourced glitch articles into Pokémon glitches, which is not included in this AFD. Suggesting that this article be merged there, however, isn't very helpful unless someone can also offer a reliable source with which to verify the claims in this article. (The sourced or sourcable ones went into that merged article.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedily deleted. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not worthy of a Wikipedia page Linguica 09:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable school paper Nuttah68 10:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Celestianpower háblame 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based on Deal or No Deal, Series 1 (UK) and Deal or No Deal, Series 2 (UK), and contains nothing but speculation and rumours. Nothing has been confirmed about either the length of this series, or the start date. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a television guide. — FireFox 10:57, 15 July '06
The result was speedy keep per nominator, and no-one else has voted delete. JYolkowski // talk 15:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, but unsalvageably POV, totally non-notable, and uncited. --Cornflake pirate 11:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. The merge is complete, and as it was merged we cannot delete (per GFDL). (ESkog)(Talk) 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is claiming that 4 people have gone pro,but the La Crosse Loggers article disputes this by saying "none." I am neutral on this one, because I know nothing about baseball. --Richhoncho 11:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleteall. Tyrenius 23:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fictitious team; believe me, if they were a real team, I would know. Also no such league as the League of Polmont. Keeno 11:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages which are about the fictitious league and national association with which Polmont FC is associated:
The result was Keep. I find the strongest argument at the moment is to leave it as it is. I will leave it up to those working on Sex Tourism as to whether they want to move it to Male Sex Tourism, though this does seem like a very good idea. Tyrenius 23:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the number of sources which have been added, I am voting Keep on this. I'm not sure whether merging this with the main sex tourism article or having two separate articles would be optimal, I'm fine with either option. I'm not entirely sure this should be deleted, but I'm concerned enough on this to nominate it. The article appears to have only one source, a book where the author matches the name of the person who wrote this article. In addition, the publisher which amazon.com lists for this book has only published two books... both by this same author. I'm thinking that a self-published book is not a reliable source, and this article may be just the author's way of advertising her book Xyzzyplugh 11:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the seminal works, such as "For Love and Money: Romance Tourism in Jamaica," by Pruitt and LaFont, are in scholarly journals such as Annals of Tourism Research that cannot be linked to directly, often not even indirectly. They can be cited w/o URL links I suppose? Another major work, April Gorry's "Leaving Home for Romance: Tourist Women's Adventures Abroad," is a doctoral dissertation that can only be purchased via UMI or viewed at UC-Santa Barbara. The most important newspaper articles lie behind the wall at Lexis-Nexus. Some of the best and most riveting online discussions on Lonely Planet's Thorn Tree were removed in the passage of time. If you want to know details on Victorian female sex travelers from the United States and Britain, who visited Europe and India, that will require a month in the Library of Congress looking at books, some in the antiquarian section.
If anyone has ideas on how to proceed on this topic w/ a paucity of possible external links, let me know, I can revise it. If you want someone else to tackle the topic, that is fine too, the question is ... who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbelliveau (talk • contribs) --Jbelliveau 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. There were no voices to delete other than the nom. Tyrenius 23:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing intrinsically notable about the chapter, and scholars treat the bible as a collection of narratives, and themes, rather than dividing it by chapter and verse (which are a mediaeval invention, anyway). Not one major encyclopedia, nor famous faith based encyclopedias (Jewish Encyclopedia, Catholic Encyclopedia, etc.), treats the bible in a chapter-by-chapter manner, and most scholars regard it completely inappropriate to divide it like this.
The article as it stands is nothing more than a collection of unrelated trivia, and this is all it is likely ever to be. It is true that parts of the chapter have been used at weddings, but that only makes the parts notable, not the whole thing as a unit, in the same way that alas poor Yorick, I knew him Horatio is an often used quote from shakespeare, but that doesn't mean we can justify an article concentrating on Act 5 Scene 1, all of Act 5 Scene 1, and only Act 5 Scene 1, of the play in question. (Delete/Merge - merge if anything is salvageable) Clinkophonist 11:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result was Delete. - Bobet 22:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are tv transmission towers notable? If they aren't then I shall be listing a few more. I'm in favour of delete especially as the place isn't listed at WP. --Richhoncho 12:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 10:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating MicroWorld. The author of both articles has repeatedly removed advert tags without making any attempt to clean up the articles. Delete as spam. Nuttah68 12:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 18:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, Google has no hits on the article name or the alledged TV show. Nuttah68 12:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was} Speedy A1/A3, empty article. Just zis Guy you know? 14:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already deleted once, author constantly removes speedy tags. Nuttah68 12:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted under CSD A6 (Personal Attack). Whether this is a hoax is irrelevant. An encyclopedia article cannot claim its subject is gravely mentally ill unless there are sources confirming this. Xoloz 01:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is unverifiable and possibly non-notable (not every deranged murdered needs an article). The story is also very confused. Where the heck does Clark come from in this story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metros232 (talk • contribs)
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
reads like an advert, also a copyright violation--RMHED 12:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a memorial. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 11:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a non-notable vanity article, is against Wikipedia:Autobiography: "It is a faux pas to write about yourself, according to Jimmy Wales. You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved". Also nominating Tsunami Productions ("TP employs 7 people and has created several games, but most have never been released, or even finished for that matter") and Tales of Asgaria (game under developement, has 40 google-hits altogether even if we include WP mirrors.) --Zoz (t) 12:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Google has numerous hits on "Green Bastard" drink, none of which refer to this drink apparantly invented by the author but i must say the drink presented here looks a lot better than that ound on google. Nuttah68 13:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that author Davidjohnmartin removed the afd tag on 13:06, 15 July 2006.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crystallballism about a wrestling match. Prodded then removed ( with some amusing vandalism to my Userpage ) with no useful comment Peripitus (Talk) 13:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? WWE hasn't mentioned anything about the match, so saying anything else would just be speculation. TJ Spyke 02:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add it to the special matches page and update it after the match ryan d
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article written by one of the developers of a non notable game. Nuttah68 13:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. - Bobet 22:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable internet forum. Fails WP:WEB and has an Alexa rank of almost 4,000,000. Recury 13:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we aren't only responding to the reason I gave in the nom; I'm free to bring up other reasons as the AFD goes on. I never said external links weren't in the article and couldn't care less if they are. WP:N has a good explanation of why I think it fails WP:NOT. There are worse articles, but they aren't up for deletion like this one is (yet), so lets just stick to talking about this one for now. Recury 04:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Search engine with an Alexa rank of > 600,000. No evidence of innovation, reach, significance - fails WP:WEB. Likely WP:VSCA, started by User:Websearcherman, who has no contribs other than this article and linking it to others. Just zis Guy you know? 13:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the notability in this bio. NawlinWiki 14:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to 2006 Gaza conflict. There are already two other articles dealing with the same subject. POV concerns should be dealt with in the respective talk pages, not by creating new articles. --Ezeu 09:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This new article is of the same subject as Operation Summer Rains. The creator (User:CltFn) chose to write a new article instead of editing the current one for some reason, a propose merge has been made as well, although IMO all the information is already in the article. TheYmode 14:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Bobet 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Web directory with an Alexa rank around 100,000, no evidence of innovation, significance, reach. Looks like a fail on WP:WEB, article is a stub anmd unsourced. Not spam, though, creator is a good-faith editor. Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, it's a list of wikipedia articles, not a web directory on itself. - Bobet 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:NOT a web directory, is it a directory of web directories? Just zis Guy you know? 14:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Ghits: [56]. Appears part of a marketing campaign [57]. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 21:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN fictional team from a book that hasn't been published yet. BoojiBoy 14:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this stub for reasons which should be readily obvious. But my lack of knowledge is not the determinant of what belongs here. Since the assertions of notability have been removed, I'm nominating this for deletion. — Jul. 15, '06 [14:42] <freak|talk>
The result was Delete. - Bobet 21:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV essay, original research abakharev 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax, I can't find any information on this guy or his crimes TigerShark 15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete discounting new users and IPs. Jaranda wat's sup 07:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)) . |
Appears to be a non-notable society. I am informed there are only 25 members My vote is
Here are some good reasons not to delete it: first, the Society has been written about many times in mainstream publications; second, it has been listed in various listings of international organizations since its founding in 1982; third, it is the oldest and best known of the "ultra high IQ" organizations.
Size alone is not a good indication of "encyclopedic" nature in this case, because the nature of the Society limits its size. A better criterion would be "utility." Currently the entry is referenced several hundred times per day. That qualifies it at as a useful entry.
My vote is
Comment I am wondering why the editor of their newsletter has an IQ of 150 and claims to be a member. Obviously not a legitimate organization. DaturaS 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baumgold, Julie (February 6, 1989). "In the Kingdom of the Brain". New York Magazine Graham, Ellen (April 19, 1992) "Minds of Mega", Wall Street Journal Prager, Joshua (May 14, 1997) "Let's see now" Wall Street Journal "Genius Issue" (November 1999) Esquire Magazine (reprinted in http://www.uga.edu/bahai/News/110x99.html ) see also http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/history.html#Mega Oh, and one more I forgot: Guinness Book of World Records 1989 page 29, "The most elite ultra-high IQ society is the Mega Society" I am unclear why very recent cites are required; even a defunct society -- which Mega is not -- may be of historical interest. Surely a group which has for almost 25 years made a careful and credible attempt to select the one in a million most intelligent people is noteworthy. I've finally figured out the four tilde thing, and I've tried to go back and sign some of my earlier comments. Brian 70.234.150.40 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis deletion debate horrifies me. When I read 1984, where anyone whom the ruling elite didnt like was made an "unperson" and all records of him erased, I thought, thank God that's fiction. When I read about the old Soviet Encyclopedia, and how anyone who fell out of favor had his article (as well as his life) deleted, and all users were sent a letter by the NKVD telling them to cut that article out of the volume, I thought, thank God I dont live there. But this is chillingly real.
There are two aspects to my horror.
1. I have devoted my life to halping the ultra-high IQ societies gain the credibility they deserve. I first heard of the Mega Society almost 20 years ago, thanks to a cover story in New York magazine. Some of its members became famous, just by being accepted. It is as respected among us as MIT or Harvard are in the world at large. To find that there are people out there who have never heard of it is as shocking to me as when I moved to the Midwest and found people who have never heard of Wordsworth or Rodin. It means that perhaps my life so far has been in vain.
2. I was at first skeptical of Wikipedia, and the whole notion of a grass-roots internet encyclopedia. I've edited a few entries over the years, but I hesitated to devote much effort to work which could be deleted by the first vandal who came across it. But as time passed I became a believer. The thing worked. But now, in the one area I know about, I have seen just HOW it works. Nameless, faceless, ill-informed accusers can at any time delete an area they object to. They pretend to be a democracy but must out of necessity be an oligarchy. And, since no group of a few hundred people can know everything, they must out of necessity be ill-informed about most of the subject matter they consider for deletions. It's a sad (yet almost humourous) blend of Kafka and Joseph Heller. It doesnt much matter now. Wikipedia is young, and one of many souirces of information. But what happens when it becomes the gold standard? What happens when it becomes the Mega Society of the information world?
Brian70.234.150.40 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DaturaS claims that the Mega Society is a "bogus group" composed of members with "phony credentials," has "no activities" and "one active member." As a long-time member of the Mega Society, I can assure you that these claims are not only false, but preposterous. Please ignore this crackpot until he provides evidence to support these allegations.Zorro24 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Zorro24.[reply]
Keep. Criticisms of the officers/founders are not relevant to the issue of the validity (and historical or current "interestingness" ) of an entry. Mega Society is a well-recognized entity with a history and with meaning within the high-intelligence organization world (HiQdom), and deletion of it would not serve informational goals. Similarly, deletion would set a worrisome example, if done for political or personal reasons. Norming/admissions standards are evolving (for the most part) with all HiQ groups, and the fact that some people might be grandfathered into organizations where according to current practice they could not gain admittance is an issue germane to the groups themselves (and not really of external concern). I see no value in deleting the group from Wiki and many strong reasons for retaining it.--M StewartMstewarthm 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here (for reference) are those initial reasons: [a] "Appears to be a non-notable society. I am informed there are only 25 members" (Mr. Jefffffire)
[b] "seem like an advert" (Mr. Beowolff)
Then a Mr. DaturaS complained: "Wikipedia is not here to perpetuate a farce"
Mr. DaturaS further complained: "Strong Delete Totally bogus "society" with only one active member"
Then he added: "Langdon is a known fraud"
Also: "This is about no one other than Kevin Langdon"
Then this from a Mr. HowlinWolf: "No qualified members as far as I can tell."
Then Mr. NORTH jumped in: "Delete per nom and Byrgenwulf; it is a non-notable club" [This can't be because of the small membership, which was the initial "reason," so this must be a different "reason."]
Then came Mr. GWO: "Homebrew high IQ society of no notability."
And then there's a Mr. William Pietri: "I can't help suspecting there's some vanity involved here."
Why did these "reasons" have to be plugged-in after-the-fact? SOUTH 19:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC) (NOT a member of the Mega Society)[reply]
At this point I'd like to point out to the closing admin, and anyone else in power who might be keeping an eye on us, that in addition to the numerous anonymous IPs, there are a number of single purpose accounts participating in this debate on both sides.
-- NORTH talk 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that the National Puzzlers' League entry should be deleted? If not, please explain how the two organizations differ significantly. Canon 21:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'd also like to point out to the "closing admin, and anyone else in power who might be keeping an eye on us", that the naysayers have succumb to ad hominems to refute the validity of the Mega Society entry. Heck, if they could at least SUSTAIN one single argument that even challenges the Mega Society and its qualifications for a page in Wikipedia, I'd give them some credibility. All we've been subjected to is them lamenting the importance that IQs have historically received in society. Their inept arguments seem flat-out petty, to be quite honest. CDiPoce 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Is it "notable"? "Notable" means "worthy of being noticed, important", but the context is undefined and the words used in the definition are themselves ambiguous, subject to diverse interpretations.
Who might be interested in examining (and "examination", by definition, requires "taking notice") information about the Mega Society? "Examining" the group, its members or its claims does not mean doing so unquestioningly; it merely entails finding the information interesting/useful as data or conceptually. Interested parties might include:
Those interested, advocationally or professionally, in "high end" intelligence testing; this includes parents of children whose minds remain unchallenged in typical gifted programs, and educators/psychologists who specialize in assessments of and research on the extremely gifted. Many widely used IQ tests have ceilings at or below around 150 IQ (aside: If Kevin Langden did score "only" a 150 IQ, he may have done so on one of these tests); for the most part, this is all that is pragmatically needed, but such instruments fail for a small sector of the population. With the internet making homeschooling and distance university studies more feasible, determining which students might benefit from an educational plan outside the school's usual offerings demands higher priority. If the student is an adolescent, one may need some testing geared towards adults....an area where the ability and motivation to measure at the far right end of the bell curve has been (for various practical reasons) minimal. Even if the tests used by Hoeflin, Langdon and others are flawed, the theoretical constructs underlying these tests may be of interest to researchers in high-end psychometrics; better high end testing could emerge from a synthesis of methods and philosophies.
Historically, there has been an interest in how the extremely gifted develop, function in the realms of work/intimacy/internal fulfillment, over the lifespan; there has also been an interest in whether other, ostensibly unrelated, mental and behavioral traits are more common in those of particular intelligence at various points in the lifespan. Hollingworth, for example, wrote extensively about the social difficulties and correlated later personality traits in a cohort of profoundly gifted persons followed from childhood through maturity. Lewis Terman conducted similar research, and Grady Towers has summarized the findings in several articles (google his name!). Several researchers have looked for correlations between Jungian personality type and IQ, and found that the percentage of introverts increases as one moves up the IQ scale. A Polish psychiatrist, Dubrowski, interests a number of adult "gifted persons", due to his research linking developmental potential to innate mental traits (called "overexcitabilities"). High IQ groups (even ones with few members) may be *worth examining* for those interested in personality/behavioral/philosophical traits associated with varying degrees of giftedness; those interested in such correlations psychologists - but also, a growing number of adults trying to "come to terms" with how their own giftedness may have affected their childhoods and contributed to deeply entrenched attitudes during adulthood. Reading autobiographical statements in high IQ society journals, and (moreso) "reading between the lines" of less personal articles, may give interested parties greater insight into the personalities of the extremely gifted.
Grady Towers' article "The Outsiders" is a great place to start - and he culled some of his info (which basically supported Leta Hollingworth's claims) from members of the ultra-high-IQ societies.
For such people, I believe that the Mega society is "worth noticing", important - and thus, notable. Sol.delune 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)sol.delune[reply]
If you believed that intelligence exists and is measurable, would you find an organization containing the hundred smartest people in the world notable? Canon 01:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the Society of Fellows article should be deleted? Canon 01:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In April of this year, Mega Society’s founder, Dr. Ronald Hoeflin, was interviewed for over five hours by CNN for a one-hour special on genius. This documentary will probably air (on nationwide cable television in the U.S.) in September. It is probable that some discussion of Mega Society will be included in the final edit when it airs. To verify, I suggest contacting CNN’s Susan Mittleman, who is a producer with CNN's medical unit and conducted the interview. Bryan Vare 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although Ron Hoeflin has founded a number of other high-IQ societies, he is still a member of the Mega Society. Grady Towers was never a member of the Mega Society but he was an important writer on the subject of high-range psychometrics and the characteristics of the highly-gifted and is very highly regarded in the high-IQ-societies community. --Kevin Langdon 66.82.9.77 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Who bears the burden of proof here? Shouldn’t the question be “why remove this entry?” as opposed to “Why retain it? In addition, ‘notability’ is a vague and specious argument. Are any other minority group articles deleted because they lack notability? At a certail point all diversity is reduced to insignificance, a falacious 'reductio ad absurdum' argument. Perhaps an article on all HIQ societies, groups, etc (see miyaguchi at http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/#societies ) Thanks! Don--70.21.17.102 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the burden of proof should be on the proponents of this entry. That is NOT to say that the need for retaining this article has yet to be sufficiently proven. In fact, I see this tangential "debate" trailing off into a loop of "Not enough members!", "It isn't even active.", "What is an IQ, really?", "Kevin Langdon hates democracy", etc., etc. CDiPoce 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been a member of the Mega Society since its founding and I don't recall any advertising for the society in the *Mensa Bulletin*; I'm sure that we haven't advertised anywhere for years. --Kevin Langdon 66.82.9.77 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'm a member and have been since 2000, the MegaSociety serves as a viable source of information for the severely gifted, especially for raising children and adolescents who have been designated as such. Until you have dealt w/the boredom of a severely gifted child, you've no idea how hard it is. This is a valuable resource. 'pini 68.196.84.28
Size Even the people who first proposed deleting the article agree that because of the nature of the Mega Society, size is not an issue. We seem to be going over old ground, so I for one am ready let to the record stand. Unless new issues are raised I won't be making any more comments. Canon 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep May-Tzu 17:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC) There are apparently factions of Wikipedian "Deletionists" based upon "non-notability", but there is no policy on "notability". Hence, matters of inclusion or exclusion are decided entirely *subjectively*, by personal fiat of those who rule.
An encyclopedia is more useful than a cult. - May-Tzu[reply]
1. Notice As it now stands, the parties affected by a deletion are not told about it. They must learn about it by chance. Yes, these parties may well have a POV. But they are also uniquely qualified to provide relevant information. And uniquely injured by an incorrect deletion. 2.Hearing The deletion procedure does indeed provide a good hearing, provided people are aware of it. Thank you for that. 3.Reasons If the closing admin writes up a short statement of reasons for his or her decision, this will help guide future administrators in future cases. As I understand it, there is no clear policy on notability. It may be applied differently in different cases, and whether or not something is deleted will depend on who the admin is. If reasons are given in this case, they may be used to guide future cases. Not as binding precedent, but for guidance, and, over time Wikilaw will evolve. Thank you and good luck. Brian205.188.117.67 14:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty clear indiscriminate collection of information. As pointed out at Talk:Dillard's, it contains some info that you couldn't find using the company's store locator function on their website, but none of that info (square footage, opening dates, prior occupants of Dillard's sites) seems particularly noteworthy. I feel kind of bad nominating this, as it clearly took some time to create, but it all seems rather pointless to me. I'll withdraw if someone can give me a convincing reason to.--Chaser T 12:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn Well, I convinced myself. In the interests of not biting anyone, no matter how new or how old, I've decided to withdraw. I think this clearly violates WP:NOT, but so many people have worked on it for so long, that I'll let it be. I don't fault anyone who votes to delete or keep this, but I hope that it will just sit for four days and an admin closes it no consensus. I found sources for four stores, but I'm not going to spend days on Lexis looking up all of them. This isn't my hobby.--Chaser T 03:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kusma (討論) 08:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listing on AfD as article was prodded with reason Assertions of notability are false (26 unique Ghits, 510 altogether), very new (one article so far) and was removed by an editor with the edit summary This page is about a school newspaper and should not be deleted because it is credible. I am listing it here because it is a disputed proposed deletion. As the article doesn't satisfy WP:VERIFY and therefore WP:NOR Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. I am inclined to say delete. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 21:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally familiar with The Politicizer -- it is a satirical paper very much like The Onion. The article appears to have some major unfounded exaggerations. - S. Komae (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also personally familiar with the politicizer. It is exaggerated but I think that that fits in with the basic principal of the politicizer.
Delete - Hardly any relevant GHits here. One issue is not enough to establish notability. I see no grounds for keeping. Further, the use of the phrase 'Do not Delete' rather than 'Keep' used by regular editors makes me wonder about the quality of the 'votes'. BlueValour 00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. - Bobet 21:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable individual - fails WP:BIO. Gay Cdn 18:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete in its present form (there are strong copyright concerns), but allow for recreation with suitable text. Tyrenius 00:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Came across an incomplete nomination from June 25 - posting for completion - no vote Gay Cdn 19:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable - nobility is not earned by marrying someone who is notable. Gay Cdn 19:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An unremarkable street. Not notability of any form Nuttah68 16:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Also included in ths AfD[reply]
The result was delete. Kusma (討論) 08:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only Ghits for this or Rowley Simmons, also nominated, are their Wikipedia pages. Can't tell if this is a webcomic or what, but it's definitely nonnotable. NawlinWiki 16:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person, a vanity page written by the subject Jefffire 16:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To elaborate on William Pietri. Aquirata, Wikipedia does not restrict the editing of articles to experts on the article topic. This is because WP is open for anyone to edit. It doesn't matter if the article covers a topic in Drama or Biochemistry, the spirit of a wiki is to allow anyone to edit. Now, if someone editing the Botany article claims to be a botanist, the community would probably take that statement at face value. They might give that editor a certain deference and respect, if his or her edits were helpful, NPOV, and supported by several third-party sources. But the article remains open for anyone to edit. This is how Wikipedia works, and there is little evidence that an exception to this whole process, this entire ethos, should be made for one subject. -Fsotrain09 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Bobet 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I originally slapped a PROD on this one a few months ago, which was removed. Since then, I see no evidence that this site meets WP:WEB, so I figured it was time to bring it to discussion. The Wiki's Recent changes show that a majority of articles on it are edited/created by three or four people, the main page has only got about 9,000 hits total since it's inception per the counter at the bottom. Also, while not a perfect indicator, there are a lot of hits for it, but very few from sites that are not blogs, other Wikis, forums, etc. Delete unless someone can provide more evidence to this site's importance per WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was speedy delete. Petros471 17:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks like nonsense --Alex9891 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. There is already an article dealing with this subject. --Ezeu 10:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the creator of this article didn't pay attention to the existance of 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis which was created a few days earlier. -- Szvest 17:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
This article provides insufficient content to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The information in this article has not been verified and is not reliable. No sources have been cited and the article is subject to vandalism regularly by users shown to be using "sock puppets". Vandal paradise, especially popular for edit wars. -- 3bulletproof16 17:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Krakatoa. Tyrenius 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom. Completing nomination by anon IP 64.209.120.166 (talk · contribs), who tagged it with the edit summary: "nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This article is redundant. The main Krakatoa article is much better. Perhaps a redirect?". No vote. Fan-1967 02:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relisting this. There is one, but only one, commentor who makes a case for the article -- but it is a very strong case. But it isn't really verified except from memory. And there's nothing on Google (apparantly), which seems odd, and a bunch of Delete and Redirect votes. I don't think there's enough here to Keep the article, yet. Can anyone verify from anywhere that "Krakatoan Eruption" is a valid term? Herostratus 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cut and paste of bio from of non-notable bureaucrat from regional website by WikiRoo (talk • contribs) aka WikiDoo (talk • contribs) who has issues. This article isn't going anywhere good. JChap (Talk) 18:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiRooThe article was modified and updated to expand Wiki and is not cut and paste.
The result was no consensus. Please defer to the article's talk page to resolve the question of merging. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per notability, though there are high school articles, are junior high ones necessary? Chris 18:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Bobet 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assumed to be an autobiography. And very low on biographic content. --Pjacobi 19:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Bobet 21:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable teen filmmaker. Lots of results for "Shawn Bowers" (31,200), but nothings when searching for his name attached to his works. 3 when searching for "Your Cat is Dead", 0 with "Encounter Shawnee Mission", 0 with "Jesus in the Phantom Zone", 3 with "Work/Play". His name plus the museum he received an award from gets no hits. His name plus the Kansas City Film Critics Circle gets 108 hits, only 4 unique, almost all of the hits are for his "Rotten Tomatoes" account. Delete as failing WP:BIO, WP:V, it's probably WP:AUTO or WP:VAIN as well. Metros232 19:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was speedy keep per are you kidding? Editing the article to make it a disambiguation page does not require deletion. Take it to the talk page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be changed to a disambiguation page, because there are already wiki articles on legal and moral rights. The writing on this page is also biased towards the belief in moral rights. Sodregat 19:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has been around for a long time, longer than the other articles split off; it should never be deleted - other solutions should be addressed before resorting to deletion, like moving the GFDL to make room for a disambig, or addressing any bias issues on the talk page. Deletion is too extreme a measure to take with Right; that should only be as a last resort, after all other info has been carefully merged. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic OR. The author had previously posted Four Years at Wake Forest based on nothing more than his own personal experience;[78] I suspect this unreferenced posting is more of the same. Even if ultimately verifiable, all of these "traditions" are so generic that they can be found on just about every university campus in the U.S.—TP'ing the campus, taking local children trick-or-treating for Hallowe'en, student religious ceremonies specific to that school's denomination, and pledge night. The most generic "tradition" of all: "Wake students...go en masse with a large group of their friends to a leisurely place for a couple days to a week of rest and relaxation, an activity known as ‘post-exams.’" Postdlf 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE to New Urbanism. TigerShark 11:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an example of WP:NEO. No real independent sources offered and it reads like original research. Delete as a non-notable term, unverifiable, and original research. Metros232 20:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De-prodded with comment on talk page. The concerns are low Ghits (155 when excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors) and low Alexa ranking ( 257,762 ) Punkmorten 20:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too detailed for its own topic. Relevant information is already on 2005 FIFA U-17 World Championship and related pages. Punkmorten 20:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite of straight marriage? Voortle 21:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft, list will never be complete Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it meets WP:BAND Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Eluchil404 01:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
advert for a non-notable program Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep; nominator request with no standing votes to delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an ad for barbeque sauce, hopelessly jumbled and unencyclopedic. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Kusma (討論) 08:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just transwikied this to Memory Alpha, another Wikimedia project, which I think is a more appropriate place for it than Wikipedia, a general interest encyclopedia. There's already an article at MA on "The Physics of Star Trek," which is basically a book review. I thought transwikiing the article would make for a nice complement to that article. I also transferred the talk page. If consensus is to delete on Wikipedia, I'd be happy to go back to MA and fix all the red links. Erik the Rude 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Erik the Rude 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stumbled onto this one through random article. Little known game. The page has not been edited since its creation almost a year ago. The google test is misleading since "digital messiah" is not such an uncommon phrase. It is in particular the name of a music band. If you google for both "digital messiah" and role-playing, the total is 46 unique ghits, and even most of those are totally irrelevant. [79] Of course fails the current proposal WP:SOFTWARE. Pascal.Tesson 22:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never released as a single ... not-notable song by extremely notable artist DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 14:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Permanent stub. Yes, several Donkey Kong games revolve around him recovering his stolen bananas. There's nothing else of relevance you can say that can't just as easily go on the page for the individual game. Ace of Sevens 23:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what to make of this one. Article claims it's a notable music venue. Is it? Fall Out Boy played there, but then Fall Out Boy's played at a lot places. The article claims that the hall is second only to the Fireside Bowl, but then the Fireside Bowl itself doesn't have an article. I guess the question is, does the sum total of all the bands that've played there amount to notability? I say no. At the end of the day, it's K of C hall in some suburb in Illinois. I could be wrong, though. Herostratus 23:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.cfreradio.com/interviews/falloutboy.html
Here is a direct quote from an MTV Article "It's pretty insane that a band that used to play Knights of Columbus [halls] in Arlington Heights, Illinois, is now up for a Grammy," said Pete Wentz of first-time nominees Fall Out Boy http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1517699/12082005/carey_mariah.jhtml
Here is another article from New City Chicago with Fall Out Boy referencing the Arlington Heights Knights of Columbus http://www.newcitychicago.com/chicago/4395.html
There is a whole history behind how the Knights of Columbus became an environment where Illinois garage bands developed into mainstream punk bands, which didn't just happen over night. That is why I felt the need to create this page because it has never been properly documented before, and what better place than wikipedia. User:Thebno
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic (more of an essay) and doesn't cover anything that couldn't be covered on the individual character pages. Ace of Sevens 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep; nothing has changed since the recent AfD; also I have concerns about personal attacks and POV pushing in this AfD debate. David | Talk 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is arab propaganda filled with lieas and distortions - so it doesn’t (and will not ever) fulfil Wikipedia’s goal of Neutral Point Of View. It’s nothing but hateful original research. Especially now after the Hizb'allah Mooselimbs has cowardly attacked Israel and killed innocent lives. This and other Islamofascist propaganda needs to get NPOVed or AFDed ASAP. SoCalJustice 23:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete - Recreation of deleted material. --lightdarkness (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence this is actually going to be released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete --Spring Rubber 23:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded. There are no claims to notability other than directing short films, and there is no verification of that. Googling for the name turns up nothing. Googling for him and any one of his companies turns up the copyrighted page this was based on (though if the creator also wrote that page, he might be able to relicense it). It also turns up the subject's website, and this ancient VfD. He's got a little more presence on google these days, but he's still not notable.--Chaser T 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mangojuicetalk 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP - no independent Ghits here. BlueValour 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SPAM - advertising and, as noted above, no notability. Martinp23 23:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
++What's the difference between this and Amazon.com and the other 20+ businesses that have entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annpiacini (talk • contribs) BlueValour 01:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable stub article with little verifiable information D. G. 00:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC) In the interests of disclosure, as suggested by AFD guidelines, you should know that WhisperToMe is the creator of the article and primary contributor. D. G. 17:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Total # of Nominated Schools Selected as NCLB-BRS: 296 Percentage of Nominated Schools Selected as NCLB-BRS: 82%
Keep. I am no longer so certain this article should be deleted. I don't know if it's possible for me to change my vote seeing as I originally nominated the article for deletion, but if it is, I am voting keep and hope it is kept. WhisperToMe and Alansohn have more than addressed any concerns about verifiability and turned the article into something which could really grow. I feel guilt and regret for having nominated this page for deletion-- partly out of genuine belief that the school was not notable enough for a Wikipedia article (a concern that I don't feel is totally addressed still)-- but mostly for petty and unwholesome reasons. I may disagree with WhisperToMe on other unrelated issues but his model behaviour on this article-- not just sitting around arguing, but actually showing not telling by improving the article-- has shamed and inspired me. I'm sorry I nominated this article for deletion. Congratulations on bringing it up to shape. D. G. 19:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable website. Fails WP:WEB. 1 Ghit here. BlueValour 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowballed per this. Tawker 20:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand this - can anyone help on its notability? BlueValour 02:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]