The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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; as deletion would be cutting close to lack of consensus, and keep would only reflect two votes, this article needs to be Merged. — Deckiller 01:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Pffft. gamecruft. Merge some detail in the main game article if it isn't already there. Otherwise, the usual Wikipedia is not a game manual reasons Bwithh 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just an element of a game. If anything, the information should be put in one of the articles associated with the games in which this element exists. joturner 05:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think that not quite notable enough is an understatement. Pascal.Tesson 05:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The Kirov Airship is a notable military vehicle in the C & C games. Moreover, these computer games in themselves are notable in the field of video-gaming. Much could be written about this subject matter as well. For example, the manner in which this military vehicle is being included in these games could be further explained in this article. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh Wikipedia is NOT a video game manual Bwithh 19:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but this article is not a video game manual. It simply explains that there is a airship in the C&C games. It does not tell readers how to use the Kirov Airship, it just tells them that there is a airship in the game.--Taida 19:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? They are extremely tough and each bomb can damage a enemy building severly. If used properly, only one kirov is needed to destroy an entire enemy base. That sure sounds like advice to the player to me. --Calton | Talk 04:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are true facts. They are in fact extremely tough and each bomb does damage an enemy building severly. They don't tell the reader advice, they only give them true facts. "Only one kirov is needed to destroy an entire enemy base" is a true fact. I once destroyed several bases with one kirov. This sentence does not tell the reader how to use one kirov to destroy an enemy base, only the fact that a kirov is capable of destroying an enemy base.--Taida 00:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it isn't notable and there is nothing to merge. Wikibout-Talk to me! 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is the most notable unit in the whole game!!!. All we need to do is expand the article.--Taida 00:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have no idea how notable this piece of virtual machinery is, it's clearly no BFG , and the article is tiny, this subject obviously doesn't need its own article. --eivindt@c 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it was in one game. The second one listed on the page is an expansion pack. NN nothing to merge. --Pboyd04 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm mistaken but I think expansion packs count as games--Taida 01:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can probably make that case, but in this case I can't really see it. The expansion pack didn't add a full games worth of play but that is just my opinion. --Pboyd04 04:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn gamecruft. --MCB 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete as gamecruft, not in the least bit useful outside the context of the game. --Calton | Talk 04:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is still better than nothing and besides it is useful outside the context of the game.For example, it gives inspiration to game makers and artists. It gives inspiration to airship builders. This piece of information is important to almost everyone so I think it shouldn't be gamecruft.--Taida 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SHOCKER!The nominator has been indefinitely blocked from editing, apparently in response to him playing Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde on Wikipedia - using his main account to contribute positively, and doing pure vandalism on many, many sockpuppet accounts. In this case, the vote here could be a Speedy Keep. --64.251.53.130 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be, but it's not. In some cases the information you provide would be germane, but since as you noted this account was used positively, I don't see that it is here. Herostratus 23:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is it a speedy keep or not?--Taida 00:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Command & Conquer: Red Alert series. In fact, I already copied the material into that article (by mistake, I thought the AfD was ready to close), so if Merge is the consensus as seems likely the closing admin only needs to delete the article. Herostratus 23:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 --lightdarkness (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very short article that fails the google test. Searching for it on Google brings up its article on Wikipedia as the only relevant match. I'm thinking of upgrading this to proposed deletion or perhaps speedy if necessary.--NicAgent 01:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable route designation that no longer exists, only direct Ghit reference is this page. SM247My Talk 02:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems absolutely no trace of this designation exists -- did it ever exist? Also, nominating for AfD means, apparently, that it can never be put on PROD ever. WCQuidditch☎✎ 02:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just because an article has an AfD doesn't HAVE to mean that PROD is out of the question. An AfD is to DECIDE over whether or not it should be deleted, and many a time it gets kept - these articles are only being CONSIDERED for deletion. Well for this article, it's looking on the side of deletion. I've also removed many of the empty links of four-digit Hawaiian highways from ((Hawaii State Highways)) --NicAgent 03:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; unverifiable. It doesn't meet any of the criteria for Speedy though. You could whack a prod on it, but that won't neccessarily be resolved much quicker than AfD. PaddlesTC 03:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Zero Google hits (other than Wikipedia article itself). Brian 11:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails Google test. -- Alias Flood 16:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Tachyon01 17:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Firstly the lack of verified information on this Highway is a concern. Secondly, it fails the Google test considerably. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell? When did "it doesn't google" turn into a CSD? deleteslowly unless verified. Kotepho 04:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I turned it into a CSD because as you can see above people are voting "Speedy Delete". If a sufficient number of votes on an AfD discussion call for this, the article in question can be upgraded to a speedy deletion. --NicAgent 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CSD stands for criteria for speedy deletion. If you look on WP:CSD, it makes no mention of "it doesn't google" or similar being a criterion for speedy deletion, nor is people "voting" to Speedy Delete a criterion. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 19:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote struck per SPUI and Gimmetrow. Kotepho 06:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep The fact that the number begins with a 7, and the other landmarks mentioned, place this on Oahu. It does exist. It is listed here, but as far as I can tell, its only claim to notability is that it was built up to route traffic around Aloha Stadium. Not much to expand it past the stub and was probably created as a vanity article by someone who lives on Halawa Heights. This is likely deletable as NN but I strongly oppose speedily. Gimmetrow 02:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a precedent for state highways, this should be a keep. Gimmetrow 15:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been ample precedents that state-numbered highways are "notable". Thus the issue here is verifiability. It is listed on [1]. Unfortunately, Hawaii DOT does not seem to have any maps online. However, my 1993 AAA road atlas shows this route. That should at least minimally satisfy verifiability, and further sources can be gotten from DOT maps (which are often distributed to local libraries). I would like to remind the closer that AFD is not a vote. --SPUI (T - C) 05:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah - I can believe you on that. But given that the route no longer exists, that is really the point that has started this AfD. --NicAgent 14:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen no evidence provided that it "no longer exists" - quite the contrary in the link provided by me (and spui). Gimmetrow 15:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per precedent, state highways are inherently notable and are kept, and as SPUI mentioned above, this one is verifiable. Also, even if it has been decommissioned, that doesn't necessarily make it no longer notable – see the arguments presented at this AfD. –Pedriana 15:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ObjectionUser:SPUI is somewhat of a vandal account and therefore his sayings may not be reliable. And considering how this route has not existed for as long as 13 years shows that not many would be interested in reading such content. --NicAgent 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to the objection. "Vandal account"? I highly suggest you actually look at his contributions before making such an accusation. WP:NPA. –Pedriana 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum – Just to clarify so that you don't think I'm just blindly supporting him, yes, I recognize he has made plenty of controversial edits, but the vast majority of these have (at least initally) been made in what I see as good faith and very few are out-and-out vandalism as you imply. My point is, there is really quite little (if any) evidence that his sayings are "unreliable". –Pedriana 19:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what verifiable evidence does the nom have for his assertion that the road no longer exists? Given that his extensive google searching failed to find any information (and missed the source I provided before SPUI), I would question how he now has this information. Furthermore, contrary to the assertion of nom's reversion of ((Hawaii State Highways)), 4-digit HI route codes do exist. I was even considering expanding that template to include a few others. Gimmetrow 21:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some are even signed: 71017310 --SPUI (T - C) 10:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SPUI, Gimmetrow, and Pedriana. User:SPUI is controversial, but far from a vandal account. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per precedent, numbered state highways are notable. Verifiability has also been noted by several people above. --Polaron | Talk 23:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precedent for keeping state highways and has been properly sourced. Eluchil404 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SHOCKER!The nomiator has been indefinitely blocked from editing, apparently in response to him playing Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde on Wikipedia - using his main account to contribute positively, and doing pure vandalism on many, many sockpuppet accounts. In this case, the vote here could be a Speedy Keep. --64.251.53.130 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to speedy keep - but it will clearly be kept. --SPUI (T - C) 07:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, like the "SHOCKER!" heading. Certainly puts his objection to SPUI above in a different light. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems awfully close to original research. "Rule 1" has only 250 Google hits. "3" has no Google hits except this page. Ditto for "78" (barring a page quoting this page). "34" has only 80 Google hits. The stuff on this page is for the most part non-notable memes that are a very, very long way from qualifying as "rules of the Internet". — Hex(❝?!❞) 00:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks notability and verifiability. Deltabeignet 01:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is pretty much a collection of things that sound like a rule and that have to do with the internet. Recury 02:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, random collocation of summaries of articles that already exist about internet related practices. SM247My Talk 02:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SM247. -- 9cds(talk) 06:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly original research: This article is a list of notable proposed "rules of the Internet". The mentioned "laws" are notable, but this collection of them is original research. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 09:25Z
Delete Given the content, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was just an eleborate attempt to sneak a link to a cartoon into WP by disguising it as an article. In other words, the rest of the "rules" might be filler for #34. Delete in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, looks like original research, few references. Brian 12:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Delete, lacks notability and verifiability. -- Alias Flood 16:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --Tachyon01 18:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability and unverifiable. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above --Ood 22:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Gone. Jaranda wat's sup 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. --DarkAudit 01:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria you're looking for are G1 or A1, db-nonsense or nocontext. I'll update the speedy tags to reflect this. I concur, speedy delete. PaddlesTC 03:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete 100% patent nonsense. In fact this is pretty much the definition of what a patent nonsense article looks like. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete also the author of The Bancy Movie, ban(cy) user if it continues. SM247My Talk 02:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I afd'ed The Bancy Movie also.--John Lake 03:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to lack of context. --Metropolitan90 03:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete i'm not even sure what this is supposed to be. Joeyramoney 03:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. theProject 04:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The band that created this album, eleventyseven, was speedy deleted as ((db-band))[2]. If the band isn't notable, I'm hard pressed to think that a CD could be. BigDT 01:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Hex(❝?!❞) 01:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it could happen, but this certainly isn't the case, since there's nothing here but a track list - not too worth keeping even were it a notable band. -Goldom‽‽‽⁂ 01:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per BigDT. SM247My Talk 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and Goldom. I'll put a db-band on it. PaddlesTC 03:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 03:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Aardbalm" gets very few g-hits. This article appears to be an essay (WP:NFT) or an advertisement for the maker of this product (http://www.Aardbalm.com) BigDT 01:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Hex(❝?!❞) 01:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's probably a copyright violation too. TheRingess 01:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/spam.--Andeh 02:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SM247My Talk 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - spam. DS 14:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Text from the article: "Dread Central is scheduled to be unveiled on July 4, 2006 as a web portal for horror entertainment." I can't do any better than that. BigDT 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. — Hex(❝?!❞) 01:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does not meet WP:WEB and the whole crystal ball thing... --Gay Cdn 01:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletescrying, future non-notable sites are beginning to annoy me. SM247My Talk 02:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Maybe there should be a speedy criteria for websites that make no assertion of notability, not just people, bands etc. PaddlesTC 03:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft. Fails all the basic checks. Pascal.Tesson 05:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A3. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 09:22Z
Speedy delete fails pretty well everything. -- Alias Flood 16:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the web site is up now, and guess what? It's non-notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 all. Sango123 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is a contest on a radio show notable? I don't really think it is. I don't see how this is of encyclopedic value. We don't need a running play-by-play of something like this. Metros232 02:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I have taken the liberty of bundling the following articles into this AfD vote, per Recury's comments below. PaddlesTC 03:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smack-Off 1997
Smack-Off 2000
Smack-Off 2004
Smack-Off 2005 and a redirection page Smackoff 2005
Done, except for Smack-Off. The arguments for it might be different to the individual-year pages, I'd suggest it be covered by a separate AfD. PaddlesTC 03:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete alll per nom and SM247. PaddlesTC 03:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Ste4k 09:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator, I'm fine with the addition of the other year's events to this AfD. Metros232 11:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to the main Smack-Off article. That article was created as a supporting article to The Jim Rome Show since it's a yearly event on the show and has gotten advertising outside the show itself. Personally, I'm not happy with any of them being deleted, but it looks like it's going to happen, so at the very least the main article should be kept so people unfamiliar with the show can have a reference to what the contest is about. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom -- Alias Flood 16:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- smite them all. --A. B. 04:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy redirect per above. Joeyramoney 03:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The correct way for this is to add a ((db-author)) tag to the article, for speedy deletion. I have done so on behalf of the author/nom. PaddlesTC 03:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, Keep --lightdarkness (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Complete garbage --not a single citation; shoddy grammar and spelling; name is not even correct- should be Brian Gillan Rosemary's Baby 00:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The words/phrases "reportedly" and "believed to be" show that the info is unverifiable at the very least. —EdGl 03:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete before this other Brian Gillen [3] notices... Pascal.Tesson 05:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the article is verifiable, if not currently sourced. There are more than enough search results for "brian gillen" ira to source this article, e.g. [4][5]. Why do you say it should be "Brian Gillan"? "Brian Gillen" seems to be the correct spelling, to me. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 09:14Z
Weak keep Name appears to be correct, but needs more sourcing. SM247My Talk 10:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's verifiably a senior figure in the NI Republican movement. In this context phrases like reportedly usually means something everyone knows for a fact, but the subject himself denies. Gillen is the correct spelling. Grammar and spelling should usually be corrected rather than deleted. For another ref see [6]. Dlyons493Talk 11:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep 135 Google hits for "Brian Gillen" with IRA. Seems verifiable and notable. Needs expansion though and a few more references wouldn't hurt either. Brian 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Keep per Quarl; the Guardian says "... Brian Keenan and Brian Gillen, whom security sources say are members of the IRA army council along with Mr Adams." That'll do me, as the Army Council doesn't publish a yearbook. As for Councillor Gillen, he's clearly not the subject of the article. Angus McLellan(Talk) 14:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy of an article in own right. -- Alias Flood 16:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of the article is verifiable and we have references; if you still think the entire article is original research please justify. If you think particular sentences need references then add ((citation needed)) to them. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 21:38Z
Keep a member of the army council of the IRA seems notable to me. Jcuk 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A member of the IRA army council is notable. Royalbroil 03:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT) and this page is a sort of original research (including neologisms such as "three ravens") --Questionfromjapan 02:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Nothing on Google, Google Scholar or Google Books or Factiva. The Japanese military during WWII is hardly an obscure topic. I would give some leeway due to the Japanese language factor EXCEPT that the Three Ravens article specifically says that the information is available (or even first uncovered!) in published English books - including one by the famous Edgar Snow. Bwithh 02:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bwithh. PaddlesTC 03:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Celldea 06:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT) and this page is a sort of original research (including neologisms such as "Eleven Reliable Men") Questionfromjapan 02:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, at least for now. Give more of a grace period for an editor to add sources if they can be found, after which I would support deletion. This article may be able to be salvaged. -Ultimus 02:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Nothing on Google, Google Scholar or Google Books or Factiva. The Japanese military during WWII is hardly an obscure topic. I would give some leeway due to the Japanese language factor EXCEPT that the Three Ravens article specifically says that the information is available (or even first uncovered!) in published English books - including one by the famous Edgar Snow. Bwithh 02:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bwitth. PaddlesTC 03:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete internal spammed WP:NORSte4k 09:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SM247My Talk 10:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable and quite possibly bogus. --Saintjust 10:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is recently created and it has been acknowledged that information may be verifiable. It needs a lot of cleaning up but that is not a reason to delete. -- Alias Flood 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information that "may not be verifiable" is absolutely a reason to delete. Fan1967 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. (As to the comment about a grace period to find sources... if an editor does not have reliable sources of the material in the first place, they should not be writing the article!) --MCB 02:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Celldea 06:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. theProject 04:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note the external link in Catmouse Fun Corp.: [7] - looks like some kid's first website. I seriously doubt these are real companies: [8][9][10]. Delete as hoax --AbsolutDan(talk) 02:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and discipline user. SM247My Talk 02:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, fails WP:Corp at least 2 other articles by the same author The Bancy Movie and What A Meows Got To Do/My Shiny Meow are up on Afd also.--John Lake 03:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Katie Rice is a character designer who worked on Ren and Stimpie. Chances are, so did dozens of others, and in no way does this article convey the notability of this person. Speedy delete maybe? RFerreira 03:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with the other user...Mention her on the articles, but she doesn't need her own. Michael07:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, of course, but maybe mention on those articles. Joeyramoney 03:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, potential A7. Non-notable and no assertion of notability. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 06:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no notability claims and no information except IMDB. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 09:07Z
Strong Delete no notability asserted, merely worked on famous things. SM247My Talk 10:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not worthy of article in own right -- Alias Flood 16:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A google search found out that she was selected to be in a small group of animators drawing for a Wierd Al Yankovich video in late 2005. That changes her from non-notable to notable in my mind. Royalbroil 04:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when I saw the title, I was expecting a list of murders, crimes, etc. I wasn't expecting something that belongs in a police log. Not encylopedic. Yanksox 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a log, not an article. joturner 05:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, information is in useless format. KarenAnn 11:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list. -- Alias Flood 17:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its not encyclopedic. Not even an article. --Tachyon01 18:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. Royalbroil 04:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, so keep. — Deckiller 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no documentation of the term's use outside wikipedia, material is (or ought) to be covered in race article Pete.Hurd 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This term's use is not verified by sources, if it were then if would be a dic def. Further, as another editor has noted on the talk page, the article's topic ought to be covered under race. A call for reasons not to delete this page has stood unanswered on the article's talk page since 25 Feb 2006. Recommend delete (assuming no material to be merged to race). Pete.Hurd 03:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is the inverse of Scientific racism. If that article can exist—an article that explains the positions of those who charactize The Bell Curve as "Scientific racism"—then an article can also exist that explains that The Bell Curvehas been construed as "Race science", if anything a necessary and intermediate step before calling something racist (pseudo)science. If any merge occurs, it should be between Scientific racism and Race science; perhaps the title Race science and scientific racism would be appropriate. By deleting this article, Wikipedia would be taking an implicit POV position that there is no such thing as the scientific study of race, and that anything that purports to be race science is actually "scientific racism": as that article describes it, "a publication or propaganda with the veneer of science which was fabricated to support a racist paradigm". If you want to maintain NPOV, this article is required: the author of The Bell Curve and others might deem that book about "race science", but not allow that it is "Scientific racism". Phrenology isn't nominated for deletion because it is now considered junk science; equally, whether or not one likes it, the concept of "race science" surely exists and our job is to report it. Outriggr 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"the concept of "race science" surely exists", maybe so, but if that exact term is not widely used (one relatively obscure book with the two words in that order isn't "widely used" IMHO) then it's a neologism, and this page has no reason to exist when the material is already covered (several times) elsewhere. Pete.Hurd 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just give me a few minutes and I'll paste all of the x-where-x-is-a-large-number number of links that refer to race science. This is where semantics kills me. I should shut up now, as I have nothing more to say that won't make me look bad - other than that being afraid of words in a certain order certainly won't help clarify truths what notable sources have called truth. I still contend the most valid place to talk about race science is under Race science. Neologism my arse. Outriggr (in a rotten mood)
Well, subject keywords are always going to have "Race" and "Science" separately, but below is a small sampling of abstracts. As I get further into this I am amazed by the number of "race and..." articles on WP, which does mitigate my original concern to some extent. However, "Scientific racism", for example, is not much more "canonical" than "Race science" and "Racial science" combined, in a Google search. I still think the subject deserves a treatment that doesn't put the cart (scientific racism) before the horse (race science) so to speak, and a treatment that is not hidden within other articles, nor euphemized into oblivion. At this point, I would be content if "racial science" and "race science" redirected somewhere relevant. Regards, Outriggr 05:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basu, Kunal, Searching blindly for the truth in black and white. Times Higher Education Supplement; 1/6/2006 Issue 1724, p12-12, 2/3p. Abstract: "The author looks at race science. The philosophy of race science has not changed over time which centers on determining the cause of differences in human beings. The author conducted a fictional experiment in his novel titled "Racists" about a black and a white child who grew together in an isolated area. It is said that people are seekers of difference and sameness."
Reddy, Deepa, The Ethnicity of Caste. Anthropological Quarterly; Summer 2005, Vol. 78 Issue 3, p543-584, 42p. "The category of "caste" has had a long history both in and out of the Indian subcontinent, one that is frequently intertwined with that of "race." From H. H. Risley's use of late-nineteenth century European race science in anthropometric research, to Max Müeller's articulation of the Aryan theory of race and pan-Africanist expressions of racial solidarity with the lower castes of India, caste has frequently been redefined and politicized by being drawn into wider discourses about race."
Prewitt, Kenneth, The Two Projects of the American Social Sciences. Social Research; Spring 2005, Vol. 72 Issue 1, p219-236, 18p. "This article focuses on the inseparable projects that make up modern social science. … It is obvious that neither the formulation of race-science nor its subsequent rejection can be understood solely in scientific terms--that is, by simply considering hypotheses, data, theory construction, better data, new hypotheses, theory modification, ad infinitum.…"
Chalhoub, Sidney, What Are Noses For? Paternalism, Social Darwinism and Race Science in Machado de Assis. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies (Travesia); Aug2001, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p171-191, 21p. "Focuses on concepts of Machado de Assis on paternalism, social Darwinism and race science. Depiction of paternalism in the novel The Posthumous Memoirs of Bras Cubas; Darwinian concept revealed in passages by de Assis; Empirical views on noses."
Keep as historical topic. See: Lux, Maureen K (2001:6) Medicine that walks. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0802082955. On Google Books. Moonraker88 09:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources appear to be self-referential to establish the term. Perhaps it would be more suitable after the term raciology enters Wikictionary. WP:SPAMSte4k 09:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has merit but needs better referencing. -- Alias Flood 17:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your original, self-deleted comment "racist rubbish" is exactly the reason why I have written the comments above. Outriggr 07:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is already contained at Race#History_of_race_research. (That seems to be the more appropriate title, as race science appears to be exclusively used as a synonym for, or in the context of, scientific racism.)--Nectar 08:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography, probably a vanity page. (One anon. user has been constantly updating it with new information about what is probably herself.) Note that the external link to her work (which has no page on wikipedia), the long details about her private hobbies and family life, plans for the future, politicans she likes, what major she has changed to during college, etc. It seems like she only has an entry because she supports "our next President, Mitt Romney". Reading it over I can't see any reason why it belongs on Wikipedia. Zagsa 04:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, vanity page. Google pulls a a few hits, but they are related to her support of a presidential candidate in 2008 and do not make her notable. ViridaeTalk 04:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete the Globe article linked at the bottom of the page provides very strong indication that this page has been created as part of a well-organized operation to gather credibility for this blog. Two users account for most of the edits on the page. One of them User:Parachutegurl has spammed the page of Netroots (spam reverted) and Mitt Romney. The other user is anonymous but that IP is responsible for deleting a negative comment on the talk page of Ann Marie Curling. Pascal.Tesson 05:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Pascal.Tesson. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. This AFD may need to be monitored for vandalism, if negative comments on this person are being removed from the talk page. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 06:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WeakDelete. Seems Non-notable per above editors but I'll say weak on the basis of 12,000 Google hits. Going through the hits seem a repeating of the same message to blogs and message boards but there might be something notable in the pack that I missed.Ifnord 15:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How right you are. Ifnord 13:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn/vanity article -- Alias Flood 17:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vanity article. --Tachyon01 18:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. The Alexa ranking for her blog's web site is 289,072. --Metropolitan90 03:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn-bio and minor campaign volunteer and blogger. --MCB 05:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prior to my editing them out, this was replete with (purported) revelations about her children's medical conditions: conditions for which we have no verification and which, enshrined in this way forever on the Internet, might have consequences for them later in life. - Nunh-huh 05:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a poitical figure, and thus has a broad range of appeal. Deletion is too harsh. Add negative comments and see if it is deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable/vanity. Royalbroil 04:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Pascal.Tesson. "Delete" because this article does not meet notability standards and it's the right thing to do; I'd say keep otherwise in spite of my general sense of annoyance. "Strong" because of the general stridency of Parachutegurl and her faithful sidekick, 12.219.68.38, in spamming links around Wikipedia. (Romney does not need this sort of person antagonizing people.)--A. B. 04:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to intellectual property, the article mentions only types of IP. A quick look at a Butterworth's legal dictionary (albeit an Australian one) reveals it is not a legal term of art as it is not mentioned. It is possible this is referring to patents or designs law as distinct from all types of IP including copyrights and trade marks, but it is still redundant. SM247My Talk 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good redirect, since there is no evidence that "industrial property" actually refers to IP, as opposed to, say factories and tools. --MCB 05:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arguable. The only real evidence I can offer (and very scant at that) is the name of the subject I took last semester at uni, Intellectual and Industrial Property Law. I'm sure its an accurate term, but not one to merit an article. SM247My Talk 23:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Ste4k 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced OR, bordering on nonsense. I am unable to find any references that confirm the author's assertion that "industrial property" refers to "the intangible assets of commercially active juristic persons". --MCB 05:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Intellectual property. I believe that in some countries IP is "industrial property", not "intellectual property". See this link from the Japanese Patent Office [11]. I believe a small mention of the distinction between "intellectual" and "industrial" property would then be merited at Intellectual property. --AbsolutDan(talk) 19:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy close. It's not appropriate to use AfD solely to promote a merge. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with this topic, but this article can't reasonably be expanded in the future, in that we are extremely unlikely to have a well-known researcher observe - or experiment with - additional homosexual necrophilia in mallards. I suggest Merge into necrophilia and link from homosexuality in animals, primarily because it already has a section in necrophilia. Alternatively, it could be renamed so that the topic discusses this specific incident or research paper. Deco 04:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ig Nobel Prize which is the source of its notability -- Samir धर्म 04:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Samir suggests. Shenme 04:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Samir. I was very suprised to see this title, I have a book of the Ig Nobel Prizes somewhere. ViridaeTalk 04:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Samir's suggestion.--John Lake 05:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Animal sexuality. Animal_sexuality#Necrophilia already talks about it so not much content (if any) has to be merged. I'd rather it not redirect to IgNobel, though Animal_sexuality#Necrophilia should mention it. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 08:55Z
Merge per above (interesting to note how times change - this almost certainly would have been WP:DAFT or even WP:BJAODN a few years ago). SM247My Talk 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its an actual published study. ViridaeTalk 11:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Rolls eyes) That's the point. Some of us are allowed to have a sense of humour. SM247My Talk 11:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - main content of article already present in Animal sexuality. This article adds nothing more. A link to Kees Moeliker paper from the animal sexuality article would be enough - and I'll add that. SilkTork 21:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason to delete the history; why not redirect? —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 21:42Z
Delete redundant per content at animal sexuality, this is an extremely unlikely search term so no redirect makes much sense. This is essentially a joke, anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is essentially the title of the paper (modulo the scientific name for 'duck'). Redirects are cheap; why not keep the redirect to prevent recreation; and keep history. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-03 09:38Z
Delete as per JzG. --MCB 05:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable scientific paper with respectable references, or, more likely since from the above votes that has WP:SNOW chance of happening, at least merge The title is a likely search term for anyone who has ever heard of the paper, and I, for one, will now likely never forget it. Much as I'd like to. Wow. AnonEMouse(squeak) 12:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, for reasons stated above. We don't need a separate article for each animal that displays such behavior, or each instance of it. (Still, I find it amusing that Wikipedians rush to get rid of any article that isn't absolutely necessary, when there's clearly no shortage of webspace or bandwidth. I'd vote Keep if it wasn't hopeless.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikivader (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 July 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. Borderline notable.--Eloquence* 22:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in question --NMChico24 04:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Presuming everything said in the article is true (and it seems like much of it comes from the bio on his website), he is more notable than many of the other people categorized as American triathletes. As the "first manager/agent for multiple Tour de France Champion Lance Armstrong" and having "completed more than 140 triathlons, qualified for and finished the Hawaiian Ironman Triathlon and The Boston Marathon", I'm willing to grant him notability. joturner 05:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is precisely my point. All of his sources are from his own website. Are there any notable publications independent of this person who have printed any information about him? --NMChico24 22:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep until notability can be asserted but the article at least needs a major rewrite. Pascal.Tesson 05:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self published sources can say anything they want. Advertise while getting cleaned up. Are there any other reliable secondary sources that make this person any better than thousands of other atheletes? I know what you'll say. You'll say "but 90% of the rest of Wikipedia" is the same. I say that 90% of the rest of Wikipedia is that way because people are too busy expanding the size rather than improving the quality. Ste4k 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found what I believe is an independent source from Host Communications (his employer) that lists his accomplishments that are claimed in his article/personal website. [12] His accomplishments do demonstrate his notability. Royalbroil 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, with some reservations. Upon reviewing National Geographic Bee, it appears that we currently have no articles about any of the winners; I just deleted the article about Felix Peng (AfD). From the comments in this AfD and the other one, the general perception among Wikipedia editors is that the National Geographic Bee is not (yet) notable enough for winners to be get their own Wikipedia articles. Indeed, Orzel cites a New York Times article below which makes this very point: that the National Geographic Bee deserves more attention (which implies that it currently does not have it). Wikipedia is not in a position to push cultural trends, it merely reflects them.
Regarding WP:BIO, while Kyle Haddad-Fonda has been mentioned in some notable publications for his victory, the deletion hinges on the definition of "newsworthy event". As per the discussion below, and about Felix Peng, the National Geographic Bee is not currently seen by the Wikipedia community as a newsworthy event. If the perception of the NGB changes, or if Kyle makes other notable achievements, a recreation is a definite possibility.--Eloquence* 23:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle is a fine person, but does not merit a wikipedia page. At least not yet. Akrnsk 05:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; winning the National Geography Bee, being a phone-a-phone on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, nor attending Harvard makes someone notable. joturner 05:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I competed with him at the National Geography Bee, and I know him personally, but still, he isn't notable enough for his own article (and neither are any geography bee/spelling bee winners). They go on to lead pretty ordinary lives. Mike H.I did "That's hot" first! 05:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would lose any geography competition with him but the article nonetheless fails WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 05:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SM247My Talk 10:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to disagree with Mike H. that the winners of major national geography and spelling bees (i.e. the National Geographic Bee and the Scripps National Spelling Bee) do not merit articles. I see that Katharine Close, the 2006 winner of the Scripps National Spelling Bee, has her own article, as do Wendy Guey, Rebecca Sealfon, Jody-Anne Maxwell, and Nupur Lala, the 1996-1999 SNSB champions. Even Finola Hackett and Saryn Hooks, 2006 SNSB runner-up and third-place finisher respectively, have articles. No one seems to be clamoring for any of these articles to be deleted (although maybe someone will, now that I've pointed this out), and yet I don't see which notability criterion they satisfy but Kyle does not. For the sake of consistency, either every (reasonably recent) winner of both of these competitions should have his or her own article, or else none of them should. I support the former option - after all, both of these competitions are aired annually on national television, so they aren't insignificant. Furthermore, if you view academic competitions as equivalent to sports, then both Kyle and Katharine Close clearly qualify under the "competitor at the highest level in amateur sports" criterion. Equating academic competitions with sports is a debatable convention, I concede, but Wikipedia should at least give national champions the benefit of the doubt. (As a final note, I also take issue with Mike H.'s contention that people who "go on to lead pretty ordinary lives" should be barred from Wikipedia. Wikipedia - and, indeed, any encyclopedia - has hundreds of articles about people who "go on to lead pretty ordinary lives" after some major event which makes them noteworthy.) Diplomacy Guy 14:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand your point but on the other hand the existence of articles of dubious importance cannot really support keeping another one. I think that it is also important to understand that the "competitor at the highest level" implicitly refers to some sort of notability of the competition. I don't think many would support the creation of multiple pages for the winner of the world horseshoes championship or the winner of the most delicious pie contest in Slovakia. Also, the spelling bee competition is much more well-known than the corresponding geography contest even if the latter is now on TV since it is organized by the National Geography network. Pascal.Tesson 17:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I share your unwillingness to invite the creation of dozens of frivolous pages about insignificant competitions, but I would argue that the Geographic Bee passes the notability test. National Geographic says that the Geographic Bee "involves nearly 5 million students annually" [13]; I couldn't find a comparable figure for the Spelling Bee, but that seems like a lot. Also, while the Spelling Bee is more than sixty years older than the Geographic Bee, the two have been televised for about the same amount of time: the Spelling Bee since 1994, the Geographic Bee since 1998 (and on PBS, not just National Geographic's network). Diplomacy Guy 22:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really can't understand anymore why the arguing about policy is done here rather than where it is supposed to be argued. This article clearly has passed WP:VER and has reliable secondary sources!! It also, clearly meetsWP:BIO. Maybe I am so new that I have been reading the newer version compared to what everyone else remembers, but, this person has won a national level contest; i.e. "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". he's representing the United States as captain of the four-man American team in the International Geographic Olympiad, which started Tuesday in Vancouver, B.C. Please don't send me anymore messages telling me that I don't research before I nominate. This article could use some expansion, but this person clearly passes all the criteria. Ste4k 18:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess it depends on what one considers a newsworthy event. The result of a contest such as this one is reported typically on slow news days as a human interest story. For instance, searching on the nytimes archive, you can see that the NY times has only reported the result occasionally. Pascal.Tesson 18:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete winning the Geography Bee doesn't merit an article. Wikibout-Talk to me! 22:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Winners of the National Geography Bee are not the subject of general public interest. --Metropolitan90 03:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I don't consider winners of events such as the one cites as conferring notability and wide public interest for Wikipedia bio purposes. --MCB 05:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - WP:NN. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWeak Keep. Winning the National Spelling Bee is far more notable than some other "notable" achievements, such as winning the Air Guitar Championships. Royalbroil 04:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not the National Spelling Bee, it's the National Geographic Bee which has far less exposure. Pascal.Tesson 13:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out my error. I have changed by vote to weak keep. Barely notable - on the edge. Royalbroil 01:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be point out that after winning the Geo Bee, Mr. Haddad-Fonda was interviewed by CNN and was on the Today show (Look it up on Lexis Nexus, transcripts are quite interesting.) Recently, there has been several Op-Eds published arguing that the Geo Bee is far more important than the Spelling Bee, but the Spelling Bee is getting more attention. Charles Passey of the New York Times in an editorial (May 23, 2006) wrote:
“The National Geographic Bee, that is. For all the attention that continues to be accorded to the National Spelling Bee, from a feature film (Akeelah and the Bee) to a prize-winning documentary (Spellbound) to a Broadway musical (The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee), the less-heralded Geography Bee is more relevant. After all, we live in a global age, when events in far-flung countries have as much impact as those close to home. It stands to reason that knowing where these places are would be an invaluable skill.”
But back to Mr. Haddad-Fonda, I do not think that Mr. Haddad-Fonda has “lead pretty ordinary” life as stated by Mike H (It should also be pointed out that Mr. Halterman LOST to Mr. Haddad-Fonda.) Besides being a Geo Bee champion he: was Captain of the US team in the International Geography Olympiad, was a Phone-a-Friend, was a Presidential Scholar, lead his High School Knowledge Bowl to the finals of National High School Quiz Bowl, wrote an article for the Concord Review, and raised money to promote geography. Of course none of these things are as newsworthy as wining the National Geo Bee (expect the International Geography Olympiad. The Seattle Post Intelligencer sent a reporter to cover the event, because Mr. Haddad-Fonda was involved.), but they do prove that Mr. Haddad-Fonda is not ordinary, especially for the 19 year old. Which brings me to my last point. Who would be interested in knowing who this person is anyway? Simple answer: The same type of people that would be interested in who won the National Spelling Bee. What type of person is this? The type of person that wants to know what it takes to win a competition like the Geo Bee or the Spelling Bee. There are over 5 million kids involved with the Geo Bee plus their parents, who would love to know what it takes to be champion. Therefore the Geo Bee is relevant and important, making Kyle Q. Haddad-Fonda no mere ordinary person. --Orzel 02:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Orzel: The amount you know about Kyle Haddad-Fonda is quite astounding. I simply must disagree with you. Millions of people watch the spelling bee every year, and consequently the contestants are brought into the public spotlight. The national geography bee is not nearly as well known as the Spelling Bee. Even if kids and there parents do in fact visit Kyle Haddad-Fonda's wikipedia page, they don't find "what it takes to win" they find two sentences about Kyle Haddad- Fonda.
I am really frightened by what you know about Kyle. Much of it was not in the article or in the links. For example, I couldn't substantiate what you said about his participation in high school Quiz Bowl, and I only found reference to Concord Review when I specifically searched for that with Kyle's name. Which makes me wonder who are you? Perhaps you are justified in not identifying yourself, after the criticism of Mike H. However, it seems that you either a stalker, a close friend, or family member of Kyle or even Kyle himself, which explains your impassioned plea to keep the article. It is important that the decision to delete a biographical article not be based on how many of the subject's friends vote, but based on the actual content of the article. In the case that you are Kyle Haddad-Fonda, a person as smart as you should realize that Wikipedia has certain standards, and that there are many fine people without articles.--Akrnsk 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry to tell you this but I have never met Kyle and we are not related. How do I know so much? Its because I am a very good researcher. Which was what I was doing, when I found this discussion. On a quite July 4th morning, I was doing research on the Civil War in Troy, NY. I decide to google information on James Robert Fonda, who was involved in a pre-Civil War dispute (if you want more information on this I would be happy to tell you). Which, lead me to the Fonda Genealogy Website. I noticed that one of his descendants was Kyle Haddad-Fonda, and believe it or not I actually recognized the name, but I was not sure why. So, I googled Haddad-Fonda’s name, which lead me to Wikipedia. And then everything click together. I remembered that I actual watched that particular Geo Bee, and about a year later I heard his name in relationship to a now defunct website called Worldwise Worldwide (which came to my attention when I was working for State Education Dept. It was a really impressive website, but I digress.)
I noticed that Haddad-Fonda entry was up for deletion. I truly feel that the champion of the Geo Bee should be given as much status as the National Spelling Bee champion, so I decided to put my two cents in. I believe that any argument should be based on the facts. So, I first took it upon myself to review all of the websites attached to his entry. (Which I found out later, by looking at the history, was placed there by the guy runs the Fonda Genealogy Website. Who attempted to expand the entry, but his information was deleted since it was not his own.) Then I did research on Google, Lexis Nexus, and the New York Times. This only took a couple of hours, and I have to admitted that the more I read about him the more I was impressed. At some point, I will expand the entry, if everyone agrees to keep it.
One last point – Now that I have made my intentions clear and related how I got here, it would be nice to know how Akrnsk got here. I find it strange that the only thing Akrnsk has done for Wikipedia is to demand the deletion of the Haddad-Fonda entry. --Orzel 18:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I apologize for the attack. The tone was getting a little bit aggressive with the attack on the respected Wikipedian Mr. Halterman, and I followed suit - I should not have. Now, I will try again to address the points that you raised. First, I do not disagree with you that Kyle Haddad-Fonda has some amazing accomplishments. It isn't easy to win the Geography Bee. You say that "the champion of the Geo Bee should be given as much status as the National Spelling Bee champion." First, Wikipedia is not about status. Biography articles are intended provide information to people who are intersted about the subject - not to confer status upon the subject. The argument about Spelling Bee versus Geography Bee is not a subjective question of the merits of spelling and geography, it is a more objective question of interest. The Spelling Bee is broadcast on primetime television and has millions more viewers than the Geography Bee. Thus there is much more interest in the winners than the Spelling Bee.
Even if the Geography Bee generated enough interest as the Spelling Bee, it would be difficult to justify a Wikipedia entry for Kyle. The vast majority of past winners of the Spelling Bee do not have entries, and those that do have gone on to do something that would generate additional interest in them. For example Jacques Bailly the winner of the 1980 bee is now the official pronouncer for the bee. His article is certainly worthwhile; people who watch the bee hear that his name, look him up on Wikipedia and find out that he actually won the bee in 1980. A few are less notable - Wendy Guey for example, but I must agree with Tesson: "existence of articles of dubious importance cannot really support keeping another one." In fact, if the final decission is to delete the page about Kyle, I will propose the delition of Guey's page.
One last thing, it is customary to only vote once on a proposed deletion. Perhaps you can change the heading on your second vote to "Comment" rather than "Keep"--Akrnsk 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong agreeance with above comments.--HansTAR 09:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Orzel makes an excellent point. Wikipedia is great, not only because it serves as some sort of showcase for famous people, but because it teaches the public about these people. While some might dismiss the Geo Bee as irrelevant, that is a very subjective judgment, and also rather shortsighted. Who knows how much popularity Geo Bee will gain in the future. But besides, more importantly, we must recognize that what Wikipedia needs is not less info but more. So Pascal.Tesson doesn't feel we need information on Mr. Haddad-Fonda. So what? Even if there were a million Pascal.Tesson's around, if there is one person who wants information on Mr. Haddad-Fonda, there should be that information. If Mike H. feels uncomfortable reading about Mr. Haddad-Fonda for personal reasons, that should not limit the ability of others who might feel inspired by Mr. Haddad-Fonda's story. First Sea Lord 8:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep It seems as if the high-minded self-styled "guardians" of Wikipedia simply cannot behold the fact that Mr. Haddad-Fonda has accomplished more in 17 years than most people will accomplish in their entire lives. In any event, despite all of his achievements to date, Mr. Haddad-Fonda continues to spend his time improving his abilities and relentlessly fine-tuning his mind, while others merely waste away their hours trolling Wikipedia in search of articles to delete as a way of brushing their own egos and inflating their sense of self-importance. Furthermore, those who wish to delete this entry are doing little more than delaying the inevitable, as an expanded entry of Mr. Haddad-Fonda -- who has always, not by luck or fortune but by dint of hard work and determination, pushed himself to levels of the mind that few can comprehend -- an expanded entry will necessarily be created in the future, rendering your current work meaningless. Down in North Carolina, some basketball coach's claim to fame -- his epitaph -- is that he cut Michael Jordan from his high school basketball team. Numerous publishers rejected the "Chicken Soup for the Soul" series -- over 100, in fact -- before little-known Health Communications saw its potential, and the result has been tens of millions of dollars in revenue, as well as embarrassment for the rest of those publishers who trusted their egos so much that they blinded themselves from a series that connected with the values that have always made us human. All of you who wish to "Delete," I'm sure, care about Wikipedia, and perhaps, in some far-off way, care about Kyle and believe in his future and the contributions that he can make to this country and our world. So think before you act. Reflect not just on Mr. Haddad-Fonda's life, and all the potential therein, but on your own life, and what sort of legacy you wish to leave. Most of us are, in fact, "ordinary beings," which is perfectly all right. But let there be no doubt that all of us, if just in some small way, are remembered, and that as our story fades into the stream of history, it leaves its own small -- and indelible -- imprint. After you live a good long life, and they publish your obituary fifty years from now, let me implore you -- You do not want the first sentence of your obituary to say that you were an instrumental part of the movement to deny one of the great men of the 21st Century, Mr. Haddad-Fonda, a wikipedia entry. - The Reaganite
Delete I think you and First Sea Lord are right. Wikipedia is valuable because it teaches the public about famous people, not because it is a showcase for famous people. Kyle Haddad-Fonda's page as it stands now is a little more than a Vanity page. Please note that I said "a little more." It is a little bit more than the vanity page described in the article. The question of noteworthiness is what we are debating now. Wikipedia strives to have articles that are useful and relevant today. If it tried to document every individual who showed some potential - if it tried to follow every up and coming youth, Wikipedia would not only be faced with an insurmountable task, it would be a mess of nearly worthless autobiographies. Wikipedia is not a book publisher. Book publishers speculate as to the success of the works and make a decision based on what they believe the future of a book holds. Wikipedia articles document what has happened, it is not a crystal ball. It is possible that Kyle Haddad-Fonda will become a "one of the great men of the 21st Century," and when that day comes, I will fully support the creation of his Wikipedia page, however until that day comes, his Wikipedia page will remain frivolous.--Akrnsk 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel it that is strange that Akrnsk never refuted my main argument, but attack my intentions. If anyone wants to know my intentions can see my comments responding to Akrnsk. But, my main points still stand. The Geo Bee is an important competition that involves millions of students each year. Furthermore, as Mr. Haddad-Fonda has shown, its champions are interviewed by many prominent news outlets. It would be a disservice to Geo Bee to “downgrade” its champions, while showcasing the champions of the Spelling Bee. Honestly, I can see millions of participants of Geo Bee, who would interested in knowing the backgrounds of the past champions, which is reason effort to kept this entry. --Orzel 20:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Note that the list of winners is already in the National Geographic Bee entry, so I'm not sure there's any point to having a separate article listing the winners and even less so individual articles. Pascal.Tesson 23:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Felix is one of the more notable winners, having won both the Geography Bee and the AAA Travel High School Challenge, a high school scholarship competition gaining exponential prestige every year. The geography bee, as well, is now the nations second largest academic competition, bested only by the Spelling Bee itself, and some of the more notable winners (if not all of them) perhaps deserve some kind of recognition for winning this competition of 5 million+ participants. --HansTAR 09:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per nom., and being already listed on National Geographic Bee per Pascal.Tesson. No prejudice against recreation if he does something more notable later on. --AbsolutDan(talk) 19:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of these terms are attributed to any context, making this article unverifiable. For example, none of these terms clarify what culture or subculture or what time period they originate from.
Similarly, none of the claims in this article are sourced; in fact, the whole article is unverified.
This article is a vandalism magnet; I glanced over the list and spotted a great deal of obvious vanity and vandalism, and the history is equally disheartening.
This article has no criteria; if I and my friends have a word we made up, there's nothing stopping us from adding it to this list.
This list cannot ever possibly be complete, and the intro even admits this.
This is a wholly unencyclopedic article to the point of being impossible to fix, and even if it could be fixed, it wouldn't belong on this project, per WP:NOT.
Delete this article has already been added to AntiWikipedia , so it doesn't need to be here anymore. Get rid of it as soon as possible.BrandNew21 09:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it's been added to an unrelated web site. So? That's as if I said, "We can delete this article, because I copied it to my LiveJournal." -- Kicking222 11:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with bafflement as to how the previous AfD didn't stick. Rampantly unverifiable, some of these seem totally implausible and sound like things made up in school one day, and keeping it is like putting up a neon sign that says "bored stoners, please screw around with this!" Opabinia regalis 06:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never underestimate how appallingly low some peoples standards are. There are many who treat "notable" and "verifiable" as synonyms. Oh. And Delete, per above. -- GWO
Ridiculously strong delete per all above. SM247My Talk 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strooooong delete per everyone above. I just wanted to make sure this gets closer to deletion, as opposed to the last vote's ridiculous "no consensus". -- Kicking222 11:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed all the unsourced content... which is to say all of it... and placed it on the talk page. I personally have no objection to this topic whatsoever, believe most of the content is probably valid, but all of it, like all of WIkipedia, is subject to the verifiability policy. If people wish to find sources for the items and move them back into the article as sources are found, I think it would be a perfectly acceptable article. I'm not going to vote yet; I want to see whether there's any evidence that the editors of the page are willing to do the minimal research work needed to make this a legitimate article. When there are at least a dozen sourced entries in the article, and no unsourced entries, I'll suggest "strong keep" and lobby everyone who's suggestion deletion to change their suggestion. Dpbsmith(talk) 14:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. I've moved back one, with a reference, to start the ball rolling... and the reference I used could be used as a source for some half-a-dozen more entries.Dpbsmith(talk) 14:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as above. Antiwikipedia already has this list. Direct all bored stoners to antiwikipedia.Bwithh 17:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. --MCB 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Puff, puff, delete per nomination in accordance with several parts of WP:NOT; add "Wikipedia is not a jargon or usage guide." Also lamely fails to include dope or stoned (not to mention less ubiquitous terms such as 4:20, dugout, lid, muggles (jazz/blues jargon), number, et cetera). In support of Dpbsmith's effort, I'll go do some research. Barno 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind the "fails to include" part... I was only looking at the junk slapped back into the main list-page. Now I see that the old better (but unsourced original research) list that Dpbsmith moved to the talk page has 67 percent of my examples. Barno 22:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per almost every reason cited above. Fan1967 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for reasons stated above. --Phoenix Hacker 09:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for reasons stated above - this article is totally meaningless and also attracts a lot of vandalism. --Draicone(talk) 23:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't call it a vandal magnet, but if you take a look at the history over the last few days you will see that it is certainly an original research magnet. A couple of dozen entries have been made, all by non-logged-in-users, all of unsourced material, often without even a definition. I tried to contact one of these editors on their Talk page, with no luck. I do not see any credible prospects that this article will ever separate established, verifiable terminology from local usage or usage within a small circle of acquaintances. Dpbsmith(talk) 09:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AHM Bazlur Rahman-S21BR,has become the member of UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID)[edit]
DeleteWP:NOT Personal essay/blog and WP:NOR. Would have speedied, but was uncertain under what critera it would be speedyable. Jersey Devil 06:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Reads like a press release. The article title is also atrocious. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 06:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 06:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 all per consensus. It seems one or two people may want a userfy; in which case, just give me a buzz on my talkpage. — Deckiller 01:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page, along with the additional related articles underneath, violates WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:NOR. These articles (along with a number of others) were nominated for deletion in March 2006. That debate led to no overall consensus, but general agreement that the pages required drastic reform (see the deletion debate). Since then these three articles have remained very much the same.
Essentially these pages are relics of various NPOV/OR disputes in the Major power and Superpower articles. They have seen very little editing, good faith or otherwise, and are not significantly linked to. I propose that verifiable content should be merged into the Russia, Japan, and Brazil articles and the articles themselves should be deleted.
For the foregoing reasons, I wish to add the following pages to this nomination:
Merge Verifiable Content and Delete, per nomination Xdamrtalk 06:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, they read like essays, which violates WP:NOT. Also fails WP:NOR and WP:V (unsourced). Merge anything useful. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 06:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 08:44Z
Keep for the same reason as last time. Valid topics for articles as shown by books, scholarly papers, media coverage etc. --JJay 22:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV forks. It looks like some effort has been made to improve the Japan article ... but even in that one, there isn't a single citation. If there are no sources given, then it's assumed to be original researchBigDT 00:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unsourced content, but very valid topic. --TJive 05:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly sourced speculative essays. Anything of value should appear in the countries' main (or other subsidiary) articles. --MCB 05:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no concensus for keep, but a concensus for cleanup, and all that unsourced information it needs to be removed. We don't keep bad articles because the topic is notable if no one cares about them. If and when someone cares enough about the topic to create the article appropriately it can have a home here.--Crossmr 05:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the content is too far-fetched. Not enough coverage or relevant outside source to support such views. Created for nationalistic reasons. Heilme 10:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. No serious attempt seems to have been made to justify the proposal to delete this article. Any sourcing problems seem to have been solved. --Tony Sidaway 14:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The references for this article all point to a single primary source http://www.allertonhigh.leeds.sch.uk/ which appears to be the school itself. Two of them are in disrepair at the time I write this. There aren't any reliable secondary sources to provide any notability to this school on a national scale. Therefore, this article fails WP:VER, and is complete original research. Ste4k 06:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've observed that high schools are usually considered notable. There are plenty of google hits to provide verifiability. The article certainly needs improvement, including referencing. --Jacknstock 06:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I'm staying out of this, as I know where this is headed, but I'd like to mention that WP:SCHOOLis not policy, and "all schools are notable" is a POV statement. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 06:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody in this discussion has said "all schools are notable." What is your point? Are you trying to say that you think the article should be deleted without really saying it? Be bold! --Jacknstock 07:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, all right. Delete, for the reasons I previously stated. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 07:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I abstain. --Jewbo Wales, LOL 07:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should all abstain. Who cares about a high school? My parents both did fine without high school. What makes this high school particularly notable? I should have abstained. --Jacknstock 07:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That troll has been indefblocked. I struck out its vote. - CrazyRussiantalk/email 07:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from a schools deletionist. Old, large, more notable than many others. - CrazyRussiantalk/email 07:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after reading the website and retrying a Google search. Does indeed seem to be notable. Article needs to be cleaned up, though. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 08:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we keep high/secondary/senoir schools here. I've added a link to the school's OFSTED report for some external NPOV info. Inner Earth 09:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SCHOOL did not succeed, the creation of a wikiprojectdoes not automatically confer encyclopedic value on any given article within that project, schools are not inherently notable (but an individual school can be notable), and "precedent" is meaningless because stare decisis does not apply to wikipedia. There is insufficient encyclopedic value for this particular school. Agent 86 09:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete' 1901 is not an old school in countries with actual history. -- GWO
Comment regardless of arguments, lets be pragmatic. How many secondary school articles actually get deleted? (see Schoolwatch) As such, why even bother, unless articles are so badly written (e.g. attack pages) they need to be speedily deleted? SM247My Talk 10:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear past precedent on including any real high school articles of reasonable quality. Sjakkalle(Check!) 12:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems very contradictory to me (the nominator). If this school has so much notability, then why isn't it spoken of on the page, and why aren't any external references spoken of. Should a High School the size of Columbine be listed? Should Columbine be listed? Those are two different questions. My own High School isn't listed on Wikipedia, and I doubt it should be, but it services an area of over 60,000 people sharing that with only one other school. It's huge. So what? I have nothing against schools and this isn't personal. I base my nominations strictly on the quality of the article at hand. Two of the references were broken, and all three were to the same primary source. Is there anything else in the world that points out that this school is somehow notable above other schools? I see many say yes, but, the article disagrees. Ste4k 17:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the links several hours before you made this comment, and another link has been added to provide verification from another source. Have you looked at the article since you nominated it? --Jacknstock 18:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just took another look. There is one reliable secondary source that says the school is "very good". Aren't there any sort of notable publicity ads, or articles, or newspaper refs, or did anyone die there, ghosts, visits from the Queen, any kind of "Hey this school was THAT one!" sort of thing? I don't mean to sound unfair or against schools, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of schools in the world. I think that this article is safe from being deleted from the looks of things. About the comment below about templates, though, they're a joke that start edit wars, get reverted and ignored. They haven't any policies written on their enforcement, they perform a good job when an editor is applying the tag to their own article to attract help from the general environment, but that's about it. Ste4k 23:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article even hints at notability. Existence isn't notable. Having tennis courts and a lot of Jewish students isn't notable. It's poorly referenced and not even useful to anyone looking for information about the school, since most of the content comes directly from the website anyway. Opabinia regalis 17:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Obviously I disagree with the usual arguments for deletion. But notability is a relative term anyway. I find nothing abhorent in the idea of Wikipedia including encyclopedic articles on High Schools. For a substantial portion of the population it is their last formal education, and high schools often form perhaps the most notable institution in many smaller towns. There are many pages on wikipedia I find profoundly trivial, so I have no difficulty in continuing to support the existence of articles on valid high schools. They are substantial institutions with character and histories that influence a significant number of people over the course of their existence.
As for the original premise for the deletion, these sort of issues should be handled through appropriate templates first. I don't see by the history that any such attempt has been made. The deletion policy section titled "problem articles with alternatives to deletion" should have been utilized in preference to a deletion attempt. — RJH (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per anyone above who made a cogent argument. --JJay 21:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very old and notable high school. Carioca 21:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Weak keep schools are usually non-notable, but most institutes with over a houndred years of history can claim some notability. --Eivindt@c 23:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important article for the people that live in the place where the school is located. Ramseystreet 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is getting stale, but every time I see this argument it baffles me (not just picking on Ramseystreet, or this article, either). The post office down the road is important to the people down the road, but not to anyone else. My left foot is important to me, and I'm guessing the most ardent school inclusionist doesn't think my left foot is worthy of an article, but that's the extreme of this argument. Opabinia regalis 06:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might be on to something there, maybe that is why Wikipedia:Notability is an essay and not an actual policy or guideline. Although I do not live anywhere near this high school, I believe that it is noteworthy, moreso than a small town with a population of 8 would usually ever be. Every once in a while someone tries to dispute that too (the "notability" of a small town). Silensor 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this school is evidently notable. Silensor 16:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, Wikipedia includes thousands of high schools with no apparent requirement for notability. Maybe this should change, but until then, this high school should have its article. Second, we've all seen much worse articles than what I'm seeing as of 7 July -- improve it, don't kill it. Finally, it's been around for almost 2 years and seen over 50 edits by multiple editors, including over a dozen with named accounts (note: I'm not including vandalistic edits and reversions in these numbers). I just don't even see why this article has gone to AfD when Wikipedia has 1000s of much worthier potential candidates. We could have collectively fixed, even perfected, this article and written two more for the all time spent on the AfD process.--A. B. 04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be vanity, too. - Richardcavell 00:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stub - Nationally very prominent strategy consultancy in Finland with majority of Talouselama 500 (Finland Top 500) list firms as clients, some presence also in some other countries, article should be rewritten though
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: stub is not a vote, either say keep, delete, merge/redirect. Zos 23:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete—Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 08:34Z
There doesn't appear to even be enough information in this article to explain its necessity. WP:VER,WP:NOT,WP:NOR, and in my opinion simply WP:CSD#A3speedy delete as no content. Ste4k 07:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant game-guide for a game that isn't even released yet. (Closed beta means only the playtesters can play it.) This article is wholly unsourced and it isn't clear how it could possibly be an encyclopedic subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant ad. fails WP:VER,WP:RS,self published resources. Ste4k 09:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising and listcrufty. SM247My Talk 10:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG's comment on TINC. Oh, crystal ballism and unverifiability as well. Ifnord 15:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from news article: "Cabal, one of Asia’s most successful RPG games is launching its English beta across Europe this month." Not unverifiable and not crystal ball. However, based on that, I'm not afraid of deletion because I'm sure it'll get recreated again once the fact that the English version is beta won't be an excuse to delete. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 22:31Z
I agree with Quarl; this thing is big enough that the article will be recreated again soon enough anyway. The real problem is with the article content, not the fact that it exists at all. Needs someone like Ladlergo to go through and fix this like he did the Silkroad Online article. fonetikli 01:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beta testing means it is being released to a small group of real-world testers, to be tested. It's usually the last step before release. The article needs some cleanup, not deletion. Why delete something so it can be recreated in a few months (or whatever)? Video games are not considered advertisement (necessarily). Royalbroil 04:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been asserted, several times, that we'll need to recreate this article in a few months. I'm not seeing any claim of notability in this article, per WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. What in this article implies that we'll need it in a few months? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been claimed (elsewhere) to be "one of Asia's most successful RPG games". If it became popular among the English-speaking world then I would want to keep it then. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-04 05:37Z
If that claim can be sourced to a reliable source, I'd withdraw this nomination right now. Notability doesn't necessarily have to mean notability to English speakers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
gamezone.com, myth-games.com, gamespot.com have called it "the smash hit Korean MMORPG action game", "one of Asia's most successful RPG games", "the popular Korean MMOG". GameSpot is the most reputable of these. It may be non-notable to the English-speaking world as of now; I'm simply predicting its English-notability will rise when the game is released. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-04 11:00Z
Got links? If these aren't just press-release copy-pastes, I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement. Even if the game is opened to public, no claim to notability stated or implied beyond the obvious psychic press release. Tychocat 13:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, WP:NOT a crystal ball. notability claims above not verified. I'm curious how it can be a "smash hit" when it's a closed beta. --AbsolutDan(talk) 19:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see a number of Google links and also the article Elizabeth Congdon backs up this one. Are you saying this article is original research and unverifiable; why? Also please elaborate on your apparent argument that this person is not notable, because it's not clear to me. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 08:31Z
I don't see any of these other articles referenced. From the perspective of this article alone, it is unsourced. If indeed what you say is correct, then how is that verified in this article? Per the notability of the topic of this article, there are literally thousands of people in the U.S.A. that can be considered wealthy and/or businessmen. There doesn't appear to be any historic significance to this particular man, compared to, for example, J.P. Morgan whom the article identifies itself with. J.P.Morgan associated with several thousand wealthy individuals in the course of his life. What makes this person any more significant than anyone else? If you feel that the article should be merged, then perhaps you should make that clear. Thanks. Ste4k 08:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how it's original research nor unverifiable. There are claims of notability and also by association but you haven't evaluated them except to say he is less notable than J. P. Morgan. This man was the richest in Minnesota, his house (Glensheen Historic Estate) is a tourist attraction maintained by University of Minnesota Duluth, and his daughter was notoriously murdered. I think that's more notable than bloggers who have Wikipedia articles. I'm sure there was plenty of media coverage in his time, but it was just before the time of the Internet so we don't see it on Google news. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 09:33Z
It is not my job as a reader of an article to do the research which is not listed on the page. The article must establish such resources to meet WP:VER. Anything that is written in an article which cannot attribute itself to a reliable source is considered original research by policy, and by definition. Per policy, rather than guidelines, Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. thanks. Ste4k 09:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia where not every sentence is cited... in fact probably the majority at this point. Please be more careful in the future before nominating something for deletion. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 10:02Z
ste4k this is second nomination deletion of yours that I have seen that you appear not to have done any reasearch into before nominating it. Please note that just because something is unverified doesn't mean its unverifiable. And it is your job as someone listing an article for deletion, to actually do a bit of background research to make sure that it warrants deletion under one of the wikipedia policies. ViridaeTalk 11:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No problems with WP:BIO or with WP:NOR, only problem is WP:VER and that alone does not merit AfD considering the fact that there is a large volume of info on him just available by Google alone. Tag for sources only. SM247My Talk 10:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly verifiable at the macro level. Dlyons493Talk 12:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However, it could use better references. Brian 12:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:VER with only self-published primary resources. Subject of article fails WP:MUSIC,WP:BIO and with only 37,200 Google hits, it should be noted that some of those hits are from our sister project in Germany which has more material, same references being self published. Ste4k 07:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suggest you look at the google results a little harder. I really don't know where you got the idea she wasn't notable, but this result, among many seems to indicate otherwise http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/coltrane_chi/bio.jhtml. ViridaeTalk 09:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my job as a reader of an article to do the research which is not listed on the page. The article must establish such resources to meet WP:VER. Anything that is written in an article which cannot attribute itself to a reliable source is considered original research by policy, and by definition. Per policy, rather than guidelines, Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. thanks. Ste4k 09:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is your job as someone nominating for deletion to make sure the article warrants deletion. When using google result for deletion, it might be a good idea to actually look through the results. When a google search contains common words, you can expect millions of hits. When it doesn't - in the case of this name - you can't expect as many, so you are required to actually look at them to see wether the article actually lacks notability. ViridaeTalk 11:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Viridae, don't bother with AfD if the article can easily be cured of its sources deficiency. Be bold. SM247My Talk 10:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. I don't even have to read the article - the subject is easily notable per WP:MUSIC. If the article needs repairs, repair it. GassyGuy 22:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, redirect. Proto///type 10:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pecher Talk 21:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the WB and GS a country, they r an entity, if not a country and r not part of Israel, then what they r? Robin Hood 1212 00:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
We shoulld keep it the WB and GS widely recognized as a country. Robin Hood 1212 22:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not listed yet as a country by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. If you can't trust the CIA, who can you trust? Ste4k 07:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A sunday night organization at a college with less than 3,000 students is not notable enough. An56 08:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the title is too generic, but content can be slight-merged to Cornerstone University if this isn't just one of 100s (in which case the C.U. article should describe them all as a group). —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 08:23Z
Merge into Cornerstone University. This event is unique to Cornerstone University and would be of little or no interest outside of that community. SHLAMA 11:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Slight merge" and delete per Quarl --AbsolutDan(talk) 19:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have copy-pasted this to the Cornerstone U. article, feel free to trim and beautify as needed. SNOC can now be quickly redirected or deleted depending on consensus. --AbsolutDan(talk) 19:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Cornerstone Radio -- Samir धर्म 22:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Campuscruft. Ste4k 09:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Cornerstone Unicruft to the main article. SM247My Talk 10:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just combined all of the components of Cornerstone Radio, which includes His Kids Radio, into a single article. -SHLAMA 03:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Modify New. Carry over the HISTORY and TODAY headers of the old article. That would complete the new one. -TimothyOnline 23:56, 6 July 2006 (PDT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - keep. Tyrenius 22:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've edited out the ads and will add a little content when I get some time (there won't be much as it's modern and man-made). Dlyons493Talk 12:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Based on current content. It's pretty thin but at least now it doesn't read as a blatant advert. If it read more as a geographical entry I'd say keep rather than weak keep. In any case it needs expansion. Brian 12:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Comment It's completely verifiable and obviously not original research - just Google it. There are certainly grounds on which one might argue for deletion of this article, but not those ones. Dlyons493Talk 18:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously it is verifiable and that is not the issue. But an article about an un-notable resort is still spam once you've edited out the most obvious advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 19:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as geographic entry (place name), which can be encyclopedically expanded. --MCB 05:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - at best, this can be mentioned in the Chomsky article. DS 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that this website meets any of the criteria of WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. Sandstein 08:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noam Chomsky is the most cited living academic. This web site is a very valuable repository of Chomsky's work. davidzuccaro 09:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alexa ranking > 100,000. The article points out the site is not restricted to Chomsky's work, nor is Chomsky involved in it, so citing him as evidence of the site's notability seems irrelevant to me. --DaveG12345 11:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also question the idea that a torrent-hosting site is a "repository" of anything but torrents. --DaveG12345 11:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DaveG and nom. -- Kicking222 11:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. just a torrent site. --DarkAudit 12:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too bad Chomsky being the most cited living academic has never been noted for such a charateristic by any valid external reliable secondary sources in that article. WP:VERSte4k 18:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Zzzzz 20:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --TJive 05:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:WEB. --MCB 05:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that this website meets any of the criteria of WP:WEB. In particular, there are no links (as are required) showing that it is "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", and none are readily apparent from Google. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. Sandstein 08:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. just a torrent site. --DarkAudit 12:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and I'll just pretend that I never saw the list of useless comparisons that it links to. Ste4k 18:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Zzzzz 20:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that this website meets any of the criteria of WP:WEB. In particular, there are no links (as are required) showing that it is "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", and none are readily apparent from Google. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. Sandstein 08:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 11:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. just a torrent site. --DarkAudit 12:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Zzzzz 20:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even I hate it. Ultra Loser 04:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (creator of the article)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that this website meets any of the criteria of WP:WEB. In particular, there are no links (as are required) showing that it is "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", and none are readily apparent from Google. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. Sandstein 08:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. It's just a torrent site. An April Fool's hoax doesn't make it notable, either. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 08:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, impressive Alexa rank of 7,483. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 09:29Z
Keep "UKNova" gets 45,500 Google hits, which is a big number, and of those hits, 721 are unique, and that's a big number. The site boasts a ton of registered members. Its Alexa rank is incredibly impressive- not just overall, but especially considering the site is British. -- Kicking222 11:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an advert, not notable IMHO Brian 12:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Delete per nom. Just a torrent site. --DarkAudit 12:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:WEB, only 78 sites link to the URL (from google). --WinHunter(talk) 14:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another torrent site. Zzzzz 17:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. one of few torrent sites providing exclusive British content. --Madchester 05:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep high Alexa count demonstrates notability. Royalbroil 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Collaborative International Study of Managerial Stress[edit]
This study appears to only have its own group to verify its own notability. It looks to define its own name using itself as a self-published resource. As a topic it is original research on the topic of actual original research. Google hits for the acronym showed many other uses for the acronym, resulting only in ambiguity. Google hits for the name of the study showed only 46 references and showed insufficient social impact caused by this ongoing study. This article might be transwikied to WikiStudies, or the authors might wish to create the WikiStudies project. I couldn't find any active encyclopedic category for this article to associate, nor could I find any curretnly pertinent Wiki project that would include this article. Ste4k 08:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOR, only 29 unique Google hits. The article doesn't really explain much about the study, either. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 08:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's a copyvio from [14] I'd report it as a copy vio but the AfD notice says to not blank the page ... The only other article posted by the same editor is also a copyright violation but older than 48 hours. I've reported that copyright violation. The sooner we delete this one, the better, IMHO Brian 13:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Comment Sadly, it's not a speedy candidate. It's been too long. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 19:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --MCB 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete noncompliant; fails all policies. Ste4k 10:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SM247My Talk 10:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Kirjtc2 14:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Agent 86. --Ardenn 16:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Being the vice president of a youth political organization isn't enough. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 19:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Bearcat 22:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Quarl. --TeaDrinker 17:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Originally listed as a ((prod)) as this is an event of only local importance which otherwise lacks any notability or importance. Prod was removed and the article was edited to provide alleged importance of the subject. The reason given is sorely lacking. It would not be surprising if many small towns had such an event, but we don't need an article on each and every one of them. Not sufficiently encyclopedic. Agent 86 09:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a formal merge would require a redirect, which is probably unnecessary and considering the number of Pumpkinfests out there, it's unlikely that this particular one is the one a reader is looking for. --MCB 05:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge can involve creating a disambig or leaving the redirect until it naturally becomes a disambig. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-04 22:29Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, so Keep. — Deckiller 01:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PROD tag removed without comment by anon. No notability per WP:MUSIC; the fact that it's an autobiography doesn't help much, either. User:Angr 09:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. WP:MUSIC notes "Has written a song or composition which has won or placed in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers." The ASCAP International Awards in Composition in 2005 seems to count, per [15], but I can't independently verify if he actually received the award. --ColourBurst 05:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ASCAP award meets the WP:MUSIC criteria [16]. Also "Donald's piano and chamber music has been performed in numerous venues and occasions since his arrival to the United States." [17] meet the "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country" national concert tour criteria. I believe the source website to be a notable and verifiable source. Royalbroil 05:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does not mention this award, if they are notable they should be asserted and proved. If its true I believe my objection would be nullified. However, nothing in the source suggests that any of the performances of his works were or are part of a tour or of any significance, and nothing in that source indicates that he has even gone on a national tour. SM247My Talk 06:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that doesn't prove it was a tour, but it could be a series of single dates. That's possible too. The award and his widely varying composing experiences are enough to prove notability by itself in my mind. Royalbroil 11:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 KeepEluchil404 01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Purported claims about Senate activity/Congressional Record entries lack .gov references. Blatant misinformation regarding the purpose of EO6102. Reference to Senate Document No. 43, whose entry has its own problems at current. Pay particular caution to Google results in this case -- most sites are not reliable/large conspiracy theory presence. The document itself is real, but if a salvageable entry can be authored at this time, it will need careful attention to prevent relapse. Serpent's Choice 10:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is the document itself real? I can't find a single official source of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An idea just struck me... how about an article on fake government documents. Redirect Senate Doc #43 (and all others) there. Then, that article can explain that the documents do not exist and have a short entry about what they supposedly claim. As for Senate Report 93-549, I believe it does exist. The problem is that the anti-Bush sites imply that it was written by the sitting Congress in opposition of the war on terror. --Kainaw(talk) 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this report was real ... but the "93" prefix in the number refers to the 93rd Congress, which means the report dates from 1973 or 1974. That would also mean that the report would not have been able to take into consideration 50 U.S.C. sec. 1601, which states, "All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5, as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on September 14, 1976, are terminated two years from September 14, 1976." The article should be deleted if it remains in current form, but kept if it becomes more accurate before the AfD ends, so no vote from me yet. --Metropolitan90 18:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the document was real, a government source would be very easy to come up with. That's why if it's a hoax, it's probably speedyable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the comments above show the verifiability of such an article. The external source was down by the way. In the future, if it survives this AfD, it might want to use an actually reliable source such as http://uscode.house.gov/ in regards such external links. Hope that helps. Ste4k 19:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - this sounds like one of those things that usually ends with "if you value your freedom, SEND THIS EMAIL to 10 friends RIGHT NOW. If you love your country, SEND THIS EMAIL to 20 friends RIGHT NOW." Unfortunately, http://thomas.loc.gov/ doesn't go back prior to the 101st congress ... so it isn't easy to verify that the resolution really exists. Even granting that it exists, though (which from reading the text, I see no reason not to), this article is hopelessly POV. Thus, delete. BigDT 01:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (changed to keep below per revert)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, and failing WP:NPOV. --DarkAudit 03:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the revised, neutral version. --DarkAudit 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Google search led me to this document, updated in 2001. --DarkAudit 03:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified conspiracy nonsense. Gamaliel 04:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable conspiracycruft. --MCB 05:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE — It does exist, you can see refs in this State Department document, however the person who added the AfD, for some strange reason, also reverted it back to the hoax version. This version describes it in a more neutral light, which I have reverted to, carrying over the tags. If you've voted delete, I request you see if the new version is less flagrantly deletable. 68.39.174.238 17:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per link, but revert back to the accurate version. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Current version is accurate. Having this article allows someone who just got one of the dumb chain emails or just read some idiot's blog to get a complete explanation about the document. --Kainaw(talk) 00:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above now that the weird version has been deleted. I guess that means I don't have to forward the link to ten friends any more. BigDT 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current version is NPOV, and reasonably well verified. GRBerry 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Gwernol 10:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This person is not notable and created the aticle for themself Clawed 10:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ((db-bio)) tag added.--Andeh 10:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, clear CSD A7 (as marked by Andeh).--blue520 10:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No references. No verification, or even a context in which TO verify. Previously proded, prod removed without changes to article. Strongly suspect this is the product of a local role-playing game and thus entirely NN. Serpent's Choice 10:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero Google hits. NN Brian 13:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Delete A poorly written list of RPG characters, but doesn't mention what game it is. Mostly nonsense. Netsnipe CVU(Talk) 16:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable nonsense. This is a character list for a Kingdom Hearts II fanfiction/fan-RPG. The vast majority of fanfics don't belong on Wikipedia. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by definition it is "is a group of Nobodies" WP:NOTSte4k 19:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 at new title Eluchil404 01:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is non notable and poorly referenced. Also, the title can cause major confusion with Solar eclipse. Nick Mks 10:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have carried out the move to Solar Eclipse (video game). I do not retract my nomination in order to keep the debate open, but I no longer have a strong opinion about the issue. Nick Mks 19:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title may cause confusion, but 1) the page already provides a link to solar eclipse, and 2) if it was such a big deal, it could be renamed Solar Eclipse (video game). With that said, the game might not be the most notable ever, but it was made by a notable video game company (Crystal Dynamics, which made the Legacy of Kain series and Tomb Raider: Legend, and was in the midst of releaseing its popular Gex games at the time Solar Eclipse was released) and starred a notable actress. That's more than enough for me. -- Kicking222 11:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep any video games by a well known publisher. The article is rather poor (i.e. too short), but at least it has a table of information which might be helpful to some readers. Sjakkalle(Check!) 12:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just made this yesterday, which is why there isn't much there, but it was released across the US, was made by a very well-known developer and stars a somewhat well-known actor. It pre-dates the major video games sites, but I am adding references to show it exists. There are plenty of pages separated only by capitalization. Ace of Sevens 17:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 17:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Solar Eclipse (video game), and redirect this page to Solar eclipse. Yes, it's only one sentence long and even that one sentence manages to be poorly written, but the game is still notable. Opabinia regalis 17:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Opinions haven't any place in regards to policy. Ste4k 19:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you explain that a bit better? I'm not seeing any opinion-based keep votes. Ace of Sevens 19:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a video game. The games themselves should have articles. This was released by Crystal Dynamics. Particularly now the move has taken place (as the earlier name was a poor one). Proto///type 09:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 18:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no context, little content, and no suggestion of why it is important. I have provided all the English language results of Vertissage art I could find on Google to provide context. Even these links do not seem to explain why this is a significant project. One artist seems to be practicing Vertissage (Rainer Schulz) and no one seems to have thought he deserved inclusion in Wikipedia thus far. It is possible that a German speaker could enlighten me as to why this is significant since the original language of the project seems to be German. If I'm missing something and this article deserves to be tagged as a stub rather than deleted, please feel free to do so and post your reasons for the change. Anne 2-July-2006
Delete, neologism with 35 Google hits, all related to this one Rainer Schulz. Sandstein 13:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, (see those 35 Google hits]). I really thought it would be a hoax, but it appears to be coined by an artist who had a get together and painted air sickness bags green. I wish I had that much free time. Ifnord 16:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Ifnord as neologism.--John Lake 16:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot see any reason why it is notable enough to be included in wikipedia beyond the unreferenced claim of being the largest company of its type in the area. Therefore fails WP:CORP. ViridaeTalk 11:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find[18] any that made proved to satisfy CORP. Yanksox 14:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a fairly non-notable web cartoon. Google hits of 123 for a search of the title. Was prodded but deprodded anonymously. Metros232 11:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Of those 123 hits, only 41 are unique, so this is not a video which has become an "internet phenomenon" by any means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely non-notable. I'd also suggest deleting Logan L Productions, which is the company responsible for said webtoon. Googling said company gets 6,420 total G-hits, but only 53 are unique, and many of these were added by the company itself (such as "Logan L Productions' profile on [insert site name here]"). We should also delete The Mustache Chronicles, which is the production company's only other web cartoon; it lasted four episodes and gets 40 unique Google hits. -- Kicking222 12:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable web cartoon produced by a non-notable "production company". --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 19:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total noncompliance Ste4k 19:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. TigerShark 17:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PROD. The reason given was: There is no widely recognized fach called "piccolo." This appears to be something invented by fans to describe singers who have high voices and are particularly proficient in the flageolot register. It is covered quite adequately by the various sorts of "coloratura," all of which terminology is widely used. I concur with this. According to George, who added the original tag, this does not appear in any of the standard music references, e.g., Grove's Dictionary, Harvard Dictionary, a google of the phrase "piccolo coloratura" returns only 14 hits, and a google of "piccolo soprano" returns 652, most of which are instrumentation lists, e.g., "bassoon, flute, piccolo, soprano." At least one of the names originally listed was removed, as being incorrectly attributed (not a surprise given that there appears to be no provable currency for the term in the first place). I call neologism. Just zis Guy you know? 12:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If it's not in Grove's, I think it's safe to say it's not a legit term. Tevildo 12:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. --George 23:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per *[[19]], *[[20]], *[[21]], *[[22]]. It first appeared in literature for Minnie Riperton, it's not neologism. Antares33712 16:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Link 1 is a Geocities website which is now mostly non-functional. There's no way of knowing what expertise the anonymous owner has on the topic of vocal classification. Link 2 is just a copy of link 1. Link 3 doesn't actually use "piccolo coloratura soprano," it merely lists certain instruments that it considers similar: "The piccolo, coloratura voice, French horn, harp and dulcimer represent the highest mode, that of winter." Link 4 is your best bet, as it has actual singers using the term. --George 21:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... but is a message board, not a reliable source. So: we'll wait until it's in Grove :-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As in many fields, there is plenty of neologism in musical vocal fach (often for the best of reasons, for instance regarding countertenors/falsettists/male sopranos/haute-contre/male alto etc)). The above rationales say this term does not appear in standard references. My personal offline query to two professional classical singers (one of whom is a professional teacher in a top North American conservatory) generated blank stares. The links provided are not currently notable enough. Maybe we'll add this in a few years if it gains currency, but right now not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Martinp 03:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since when is a piece of Minnie Riperton's legacy NOT notable? Here is another link for the cause [[23]] 216.141.226.190 07:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG. Proto///type 11:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encountered the term when researching Minnie Riperton. Rebel.crusader 18:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, next we'll be voting Minnie Riperton for deletion. 205.188.116.197 02:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (already voted Delete above). Many of the keep votes base rationale on Minnie Riperton. If that is the one well-known case, let's just mention it there. Curiously, the Riperton article now never mentions or links to Piccolo (coloratura), though it does talk about the whistle register. Martinp 04:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had added it under the trivia section that she was dubbed the "piccolo coloratura" for her efforts in instrumentation, but as of now (until my grandmother mails me that old copy of a Jet magazine article on her), I had no reliable source. I confess the article will never be more than a stub, and do want to agree with you Martinp, but I don't like this was voted as a neologism (as if I coined it) when she was popular before I was born. Antares33712 13:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boo-boo, don't take it so personal. Meologism just means the term is "made-up" or is not a recognized mainstream term. It should say nothing about you. That being said, I still vote KEEP 216.141.226.190 03:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can sing the C above High C in full vibrato and staccato, and adlib just like Minnie Riperton. In fact, I have trained after many of her songs. --Stacy
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. TigerShark 17:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable ultra-liberal organization. Most probably vanity (seems to have been created by Vincent De Roeck (proposed Afd), the president of the organization, under the name User:Berchemboy, see uploader of Image:Deroeckdegucht.JPG) Edcolins 11:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 11:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. The organization does exist. It is a thinktank, well-known in Leuven and this article definitely do not merit a deletion. I agree that some words (like e.g. "eminent") are to be erased, but the article in general is not better nor worse than others. --User:Berchemboy 2 july 2006
Delete fails to meet WP:ORG - "Nova Libertas" +site:be gets zero ghits; well-known in Leuven, well perhaps, but not at the other end of the N2. Angus McLellan(Talk) 14:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They're libertarian not liberal (big difference), not that that should matter. I'm suspicious when an AfD has political trigger words in it, I always wonder what ulterior motive the nominator may have. In this case though the group appears non-notable, the Google search brings up Wikipedia and mirrors plus a few blogs. Ifnord 16:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
er.. there was no ulterior motive, sorry about that. You are right, it is indeed unnecessary to qualify the organization in the nomination. I've amended this. Thanks. --Edcolins 18:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. TigerShark 17:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Belgian "upcoming" politician. Most probably vanity (see uploader of Image:Vincent De Roeck Portret.JPG). Edcolins 12:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 12:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete didn't find any mention of Mr de Roeck in the online archives of the Gazet van Antwerpen, De Morgen or De Standaard, nor on the VLD website; in short, no evidence that he meets WP:BIO standards for inclusion. Should Mr de Roeck be elected in October, that will no be evidence of notability (and that's whether he's standing as a gemeeteraad or a districtsraad). Angus McLellan(Talk) 14:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. TigerShark 17:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Jewish trademan. His son is notable, but apparently he is not. "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety" (see What Wikipedia is not). Edcolins 12:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 12:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. TigerShark 17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Tyrenius 23:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A article about a 20 year old artist / musician that fails to show verified notability (see WP:V, WP:BIO & WP:MUSIC). I can find no supporting verification for the statements like "paintings and music that appeared in many non-profit shows and artists websites" & "Her realistic work was shown in galleries around New York and other public displays". Further more there seems to be very limited information avalable, for example a Google search for "Anita Ramroop" or "Saint Insomnia" return no relevant hits, excluding myspace and like websites, or the empty personal website. There also seems to be a strong chance that the article is a vanity creation due to the associaton user name of the article creator and the name of the personal web site, userfication may be a alternative to all out deletion. blue520 12:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have received the IEEE MCNAUGHTON SCHOLARSHIP but that's not enough for notability Most of article is unverifiable. Dlyons493Talk 14:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. TigerShark 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. — Deckiller 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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
Deleted. While the article describes a notable conspiracy theory, its narrative was that of the conspiracy theorists, and no reliable sources were cited. If an article on this topic is to be written, it needs to be based on reliable sources, such as books or papers by notable historians, and rewritten from scratch. To anyone who wants to work on an encyclopedic narrative about this topic, I'd be happy to provide a copy of the most recent revision; it might also be a good idea to do this in a consolidated article about Nazi conspiracy theories (or a similar title). See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunebu.
Should an article again be created under this title without the use of reliable sources, I would advise admins to speedy-delete it as a recreation. Topics like this need to be dealt with care and diligence, in a serious scholarly manner.--Eloquence* 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caveat: The article may look even more sillier than usual, as some contributors have started to make fun out of this subject, I don't believe the original authors intended to give Stalin Vs. Hitler comic book, 2000 by Alexey Lipatov as a source and Indiana Jones as a see also.
The reason for deletion depends on how to read this mess:
If this is seen as a article on WWII history, it should immediately annihilated for not having and never will have reliable sources.
If this is seen as an article about the beliefs of a small group of neo-nazis, free energy freaks, and UFO-adherents, the current version of the article is severely misleading, and an actual article about the subject may better start from a blank page (or from a translation of de: articles). Questions of relevance and self-promotion of book publisher like "Ice-Reich" also appear.
Neutral. I agree with the nominator that the best approach to this article would be to start again from scratch, but I also think that it's a reasonably encyclopaedic topic (either as a common fictional device or an element of UFO theory). The _content_ needs to go, but the article itself probably ought to stay. Tevildo 14:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is intentionally misleading information and should not be kept in Wikipedia. These Nazi UFO names thought up by ice reich publishing aren't even worth mentioning. In German wikipedia they either don't exist or lead to a "Reichsflugscheibe" page that begins with the following words:
"Unter dem Begriff Reichsflugscheiben wird ein Mythos behandelt, wonach untertassenförmige Flug- und Raumfahrzeuge im Dritten Reich gebaut und getestet worden sein sollen. Historisch und technisch gibt es keine Belege, jedoch taucht das Thema in der pseudowissenschaftlichen Literatur gelegentlich auf."
Under the term "Reichflugscheiben" a mythos is meant, following to which saucerformed Aero- and Spaceflight machine in third Reich are supposed to have been built and tested. Historically and technically there are no proofs, but this topic appears sometimes in pseudoscientific literature.
The whole article is quite good and acceptable and could be taken to a page for esoretic hitlerism or ufology in the english wikipedia, but there is really no need in tons of bulldung on that topic currently avaible in the english wikipedia.
Here's the German article:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsflugscheibe
--Turkmenbashy 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, this is the wrong article for the subject. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 19:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT for confusing JFK with flying sausages in a thesis statement. Ste4k 19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: It's always a little too "convenient" that the Nazis end up destroying all the primary sources surrounding the design of these aircraft and all the evidence mysteriously disappears. Even if true, it would mean everyone writing about it since has been regurgitating hearsay. For that it fails WP:VERIFY and this article should never be allowed to be recreated. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 19:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep nothing wrong with it and it's sourced/referenced (albeit by more than 4!). Hey those Nazis got up to some weird stuff... Piecraft 00:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Highly dubious sources. I believe that 99% of all Nazi UFOs are self-perpetuated myths. Come on...what military design office would ever approve the aircraft names "Other-World Flight Machine" or "Afterlife Flying Machine"? It's ludicrous. Think about it...does this article sound like military history to you? -- Netsnipe (Talk) 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sure it's probably not factual, although being a student of Nazi Mysticism I do know that their scientific divisions did explore into every area - and I wouldn't doubt they would attempt creating such aircraft seeing as it was Nazi scientists who were later taken by both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. governments alike to help and work on their space programs and were the scientists who took us to the Moon, space and built stealth to name but a few things. In any case whether it's factual or not this topic has been heavily discussed by conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts and it's well known - I have cleaned up the article to remove the vandalism that others have added and believe with a good rewrite and notice that this is purely based on unfactual records and legends that this article would prove itself to be worthy of WP. Not everything on WP is factual, it just needs to be stated so. This is by no means part of "military history", I would go further into categorizing it under pseudoscience, Nazi mysticism or Nazi conspiracies (an article which has yet to be put together). Piecraft 10:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deleteDS 14:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be blogcruft, original research. A Google search for the correctly spelled title yields 128 mentions which appear to be speaking of various different topics. Ste4k 13:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability shown.--Gay Cdn 15:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fanfiction/fancomics don't belong here unless they happen to be notable, which this one isn't. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 19:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fan fiction. --Canley 07:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, so keep. — Deckiller 01:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly unreferenced; basic forum vanity. This was barely kept as no consensus in a previous AFD, basically on the force of my argument. I've since changed my mind, since none of the reasons I felt the article should be kept can actually be verified, and because these things are essentially unverifiable, given the lack of independent commentary on this forum. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ Vic Vipr 15:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite having 11,932 members according to [24] and an article that's a lot better than most of forum vanity articles usually posted to AfD, I don't really see anyone outside their community looking up this article in Wikipedia. -- Netsnipe CVU(Talk) 17:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that it would be a bit better, since I was the one who rewrote it. ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NeoGAF is a forum plus a review site. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is alot of cruft that needs to be removed but NeoGAF is a high profile site that should have an article Jedi6-(need help?) 01:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you offer a reliable source that shows this, though? I'd personally like to keep this article, but I can't see how it could possibly be sourced. Most of the claims in this article come from me talking personally with some of the long-time members. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very notable site with high-profile industry members. Article quality is not equivalent to notability. --TJive 05:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, none of those claims can be sourced. Can you offer a reliable source that can show that it has high-profile industry members? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of sources is an argument against being featured, not against the article existing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is unverifiable, that is an argument against keeping it. I'm asserting that no claim about this article can be sourced ever, because there's no outside discussion of this site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is. This, however, is hardly the case. David Jaffe? Merely find the user name he goes under and get the evidence from him. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is that not a citable source? Since when has a (proven) NeoGAF user being David Jaffe not been proof enough that he is David Jaffe? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. That's why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what if it were a post from nintendo.com's forums from an NOA user? Does that cease to be usable because he or she posted it on a forum? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the GAF user can prove that he is David Jaffe, I see no problem. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of just proof. If the fact that Jaffe comments on this forum is such a minor fact that no outside source has ever commented upon it, then Wikipedia doesn't need to comment on it. We don't have The McDonalds down the street from David Jaffe's house. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David Jaffe is an example. If you'll notice, the thing you're claiming cannot be cited is not a minor fact; the fact that David Jaffe posts on GAF is smaller than the fact that many developers and insiders in the industry (such as editors of notable websites such as 1UP). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's history only shows that "A Man in Black" has nominated the article for deletion. Numerous anon editors wrote the article. I think that Black should remove all the unsourced information that he/she added to the article, then renominate the article. Much of the article was written in April and May, when citing sources was not viewed as critical as it is now. Maybe that's just my perspective. Some of the information might be verified by just visiting the website. I don't think that there needs to be an independent source to verify that "the sky is blue" when anyone can look at the sky to know its blue. Royalbroil 12:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the information in the article (other than "This forum exists"), whether added by me or anons, is unsourced, and indeed unverifiable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article history shows a lot of editorial activity, the least of which was A Man In Bl♟ck. At the point where the only outside reference is the website itself, it looks like an advertisement. No notability claimed or implied. Tychocat 13:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's "time has wisened me" re-nomination. It simply fails WP:V --AbsolutDan(talk) 20:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Ulayiti. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research / polemical rant. Possibly copyvio since it is HTML crudely pasted into an edit box. -- RHaworth 14:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. Delete. --Allen 14:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A8 per nom. Original source is [25]. Tevildo 14:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete total copyvio.--Gay Cdn 15:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as not even funny. DS 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteJoke site for fictional character, Nathan Whitington. If he isn't fictional then he's NN. Death by eating to much pudding???? Really? Google search on his name Nathan Whitington only brings up this person's personal page and Wikipedia articles. The external sites give 404 errors--Esemono 14:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly patent nonsense, or lacking (real) context. My guess is this is a real but NN comedian for whom making a fake WP page is part of his show. --Allen 14:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, possible vanity and un-encyclopedic.--Gay Cdn 15:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment - Nathan certainly is a real person, whether he is notable is entirely up to you! The death part is mainly a mockery of what is basically a very silly page - look at the comedic work names - not posted by myself I hasten to add!. Alspittle 21:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Nathan certainly is a real person. I am a realtive of his and have been for quite some time! His 'comedic works' are silly indeed, and it was the sillyness that made them comedic works. Whether or not Nathan plans to release any of his work for download on the internet is debatable. May I suggest you contact his agent? I am a little troubled by the so called 'death' of Nathan. I can assure you that he is well and truly alive and still performing on the festival circuit. This page was brought to my attention by my long term companion.
Delete I'm glad to hear that Nathan is real and still alive. The article, however, doesn't assert notability. Royalbroil 12:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 13:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like a particularly notable film company. About 460 Google hits but only 100 or so are unique (a lot of results are their website or message boards). Can't find news coverage and the entire article reads as a news release (with the line about it being submitted by someone from "Without-a-box media relations" not helping its cause). Metros232 14:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: none of the awards the company has won for their shorts seem to be notable. NYC Midnight Run seems to be the biggest of these awards, but this event has not become notable enough to be remarked upon by any secondary sources. Proletariat films themselves don't appear to have attracted any mention from the media. This company may become notable in the future, but they are not notable now according to WP:CORP. –Dicty (T/C) 19:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article along with Adisa Cizmic and Haris Cizmic have been subject to sockpuppetry as shown at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Djedamrazuk. Therefore I am listing the three of them at this time. Haris Cizmic has already been through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haris Cizmic which I closed as KEEP despite the large amount of sockpuppets. This was due to the fact that the nominator had removed the AfD tag, most of the delete comments were made prior to the articles clean up and a review of the article lead me to believe that there was enough of a claim of notability. Therefore, I am listing all three articles with no opinion to keep or delete. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk) 14:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that djedamrazuk (a 22 yr old kid - a close relative to me, who wanted to help me get my pages up and kinda screwed it all) did some bad things here. However, I have tried to clean the mess up, DarkAudit was of big help and I thought it was all settled. I really don't see the reason to remove the pages now. They are not violating wikipedia rules & regulations and everybody can communicate to me directly, as the real author of all the artwork posted. But, if you decide to remove my pages - I guess there's nothing i can do about it really. --Hariscizmic 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of everything that happened, i sincerely apologize but I don't think there was any sockpuppetry on AXA (band) page or Adisa Cizmic page. All the discussion mentioned was directly connected to Haris Cizmic profile page- which, in case of punishment, shoud be the only one removed. I do believe my young relative, that he deleted those AfD tags not knowing "what's that for". For everything else, I have already apologized. --Hariscizmic 15:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A good-faith effort was made to fix the Haris Cizmic page. The pages should stand on their merit alone, not because of the behavior of a few. Once the hubbub died down, the process went fairly smoothly (pretty much after I commented 'stop the sockpuppetry and put that effort into fixing the page.'). All three are notable. I nominated the band for AfD as NN, but quickly rescinded after further research. The articles as they stand now meet Wikipedia standards. If the editors do not, sanction them instead. --DarkAudit 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Haris Cizmic for non-notability. It looks like an ad for a web designer. Neutral on the other two (AXA (band) and Adisa Cizmic) as notability is claimed and may well have been met. Ifnord 16:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the comments on the talk pages regarding the renominations, it would appear that this is at the edge of being a bad-faith nomination in retribution for the sockpuppetry involved in the Haris Cizmic discussion. I originally nominated the page, and withdrew it on the merits of the effort to fix the page. Editors other than the sockpuppets worked on getting the page up to standards. Why should they be punished? Is it Wikipedia policy to delete pages merely on the basis of sockpuppets, in spite of the merits of the page on it's own or the efforts of other editors on that page? --DarkAudit 16:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The band has an entry on Allmusic, and I've already nominated and withdrawn a NN nomination. Not Speedy candidates. --DarkAudit 17:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band is notable enough for me (two albums released, and according to Adisa Cizmic a half-hour documentary on "TV Poland"), and by extension so are its leading members, although the Cizmic articles both need some cleanup. --Huon 18:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Music is verified on several reliable sources like allmusic.com and mp3.com, won an award at an international music festival, and had a song on a movie. Royalbroil 13:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. TigerShark 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can recreate if and when that album comes out and they meet the threshold requirements of WP:MUSIC. Agent 86 19:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom. Nothing is given for real notability or satisfaction of WP:MUSIC. Yanksox 19:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three google hits [26]], no label per their myspace page. No tour info found. --Joelmills 00:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. – Avi 04:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to list this for speedy as a non-notable professor but then I saw the "Interim President" line. Smith College is a notable college, but I wonder if an interim president (one who was jsut there until they could finish their candidate search) is notable enough to have an article. The interim presidency seems to be the closest accomplishment to being notable. Metros232 14:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn notable, no googles for this specific person, in any event there quite a few John Connollys.--John Lake 16:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep. Before this interim president position, he was a professor. His Curriculim Vitae lists a fair amount of publications, writings, and talks, a significant amount of those being in the 70's and 80's, so they likely wouldn't be on the Internet. I believe this would make him pass the "professor test", as he, well, is a professor. The article is hurting for notability claims and verification, however, so this is only a very weak keep. --AbsolutDan(talk) 20:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I even wouldn't be adverse to a re-nomination if it is not expanded in a reasonable amount of time --AbsolutDan(talk) 20:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:BIO. The fact the article has a link to his CV (or resumé) borders the article on vanity. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 00:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was keep. Mackensen(talk) 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page created by Plin whose sole contributions to Wikipedia are spam advertising a number of hotels. The hotel group mentioned here is small and unnotable per WP:CORP. The content is of little or no encyclopedic interest. Pascal.Tesson 15:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I got blinded by the spam hunt and retract this nomination. Pascal.Tesson 02:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to U.S. Franchise Systems, Inc., if that article is kept. Otherwise delete. --Allen 15:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per Youngamerican and Choalbaton below. Even if Hawthorn Suites are themselves small as Pascal.Tesson says, their association with something huge makes them notable, just like we keep an article about a band that's only notable because one member went on to form a more famous band. --Allen 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may well be reasons why this is a notable company, but those reasons aren't stated and there has been plenty of time now for the initial poster to have added something.--MichaelMaggs 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large chain of hotels. The concerns expressed here are valid, but should be addressed via requests for cleanup, expansion, etc. and not deletion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep A well known division of one of the largest two or three hotel companies in the world. If this was a Star Wars article there would be dozens of people defending it, but Wikipedia's business coverage is pretty pathetic so it's no surprise that most people here don't know what they are talking about. Choalbaton 04:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied, or documented, in article. Fails WP:CORP. Tychocat 14:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep 3.7 MILLION hits on google. This AFD must be a joke! Will McDonalds be listed on AFD next? Definitely needs to be listed as a stub. I did some minor wikifying on the article. Royalbroil 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "3.7 million" Ghits that Royalbroil reports appear to be either individual hotel websites or reservations-websites. It might be preferrable to document the chain's notability per WP:CORP rather than complain about the afd nomination or make accusatory remarks about noms you don't like. And speaking of Ghits, McDonald's comes back with over 21 million, suggesting context for Hawthorn Suites. Tychocat 05:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyThank you for you patience. Sometimes I'm amazed at what shows up at AfD. Sometimes the content to look through is too large, like this case. You're right about having quite a few Ghits for individual hotels. "..., Hawthorn Suites are some of the key players in the midscale category" [27] according to CNN.com. The quote needs to be read in context. Royalbroil 17:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another Reply The chain has been ranked in the Franchise 500 since 2002, and was listed at #476 for the last ranking in 2005. [28] --Royalbroil 17:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation of my replies: The first reply is directed towards point #1 of WP:CORP, and the second reply should satisfy point #2 of WP:CORP. Sorry if my comments were taken as a personal attack, Pascal, because that was not my intention. I have never had contact with the nominator before (to the best of my knowledge). I will read WP:CIVIL 3 times and WP:No Personal Attacks 5 times as my penance. --Royalbroil 00:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any major hotel chain merits an article. Vegaswikian 00:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per vegas, and it is a growing hotel chain, so there may be more to add in the future. Dure (T)X(E)X(C) 02:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep notability now asserted and demonstrated. COuld still use some clean-up and wikification but no need to delete. Eluchil404 22:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 04:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable hotel group. Fails WP:CORP and is most likely spam. The creator's only edits (see contributions) are all about hotels or hotel groups and the user has been warned twice for spam. Pascal.Tesson 14:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I got blinded by the spam hunt and retract this nomination. Pascal.Tesson 02:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ste4k 20:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep This is not an average hotel group of its size (and anyway a company that operates 2,500 luxury rooms in some of the world's most expensive cities is not that small). Morgans Hotel is a key hotel in the history of the industry, as is stated in Wikpedia's own boutique hotel article, and the St Martins Lane Hotel, which should certainly have an article, is the most important minimalist hotel in London. New York and London are rather important trend setting cities. Cloachland 03:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a trendsetting and fast growing company associated with two of the leading designers in the world. It listed on NASDAQ in February and just bought the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas for $770 million. Carina22 06:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied, or documented, in article. Parenthetically note that both Carina22 and Cloachland apparently contributed to this article. Tychocat 14:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I contributed to it after I found this ill-advised nomination. If you don't think that the statement about its role in the creation of the boutique hotel is a statement on notability, you are not qualified to comment on any hotel related article. Cloachland 02:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made three statements in my nomination, two of which were to do with my recommendation and my grounds for making said recommendation. The third statement was the merest point of fact, that you and Carina22 had contributed to the article. I made no characterizations, nor did I speculate as to what was written or why. Nor do I make any representation of expertise in hotel chains. I am, however, reasonably conversant in WP policies, and please let us confine our discussions in this light. Tychocat 02:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrote Cloachland when I meant Carina22. Sorry for the additional edit. Tychocat 02:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an important company in its industry. Too often Wikipedia seems to prefer things that are important to adolescents to things that are important in the adult world. Chicheley 03:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/Speedy keep over 400,000 hits on google. I think the nominator should do at least a small amount of research before nominating an article, even if it created by a known spammer. This nomination and the Hawthorn Suites nomination sadden me. This article should be listed as a stub/cleanup, not AFD. Royalbroil 04:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Followup There is an article from hotels.com/New York Times that talk about the chains purchase of the Hard Rock in Las Vegas ([29], and thestreet.com talked about the founder leaving the company [30]. The two combine to meet criteria 1 of WP:CORP. Also, the chain is listed on the NASDAQ index (as MHGC) - which meets criteria 3 of WP:CORP. Royalbroil 17:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. While small, this company is notable for the hotels it owns. Vegaswikian 00:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tard Blog (2nd nomination)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no reason to continue - CrazyRussiantalk/email 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nominated by Australian Matt. No reason specified. This is a procedural notification - my opinion is Neutral.Tevildo 16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The music label Elenco is listed on allmusic.com, so it's moderately notable. -- Netsnipe CVU(Talk) 17:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me, having an AllMusic entry doesn't mean a ton, but having released albums by Jobim, Sergio Mendes, and Astrud Gilberto certainly does. I would like to see the article cleaned up and made slightly less POV, but obviously, those are not reasons for deletion. -- 18:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep - transparently reasonable to keep, IMO. --JennyRad 18:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems okay to me. Needs cleanup, though. -Coredesattalk. o.o;; 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notable music label. Carioca 21:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 13:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google gives about 10 results all being something related to Wikipedia or mirrors. I thought it might be a typo since there's no M at the end, but adding the M gave 0 results. Delete as unverifiable. Metros232 15:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Ghits for "omniusable", either, which I'd expect if this were a legitimate project. Tevildo 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Dr Gangrene 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Via con dios --Brad101 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article fails WP:WEB The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website or content has not won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. The content is not distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Therefore the content fails to meet WP:VER using reliable sources which are secondary sources. The content is therefore original research, unencyclopedic, and possibly autobiographic. Ste4k 15:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Per a specific request, I'm offering my opinion: although the website does not appear to satisfy WP:WEB, agreed, I think the participation of Chomsky makes this a notable site. The article as stands, however, needs heavy clean-up in order to be anywhere near encyclopedic. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: This renomination comes less than 1 month after the previous nomination was closed, having achieved consensus. –Dicty (T/C) 19:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per AfD guidelines. Sorry, but you're gonna have to wait a couple more months to AfD this again. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 19:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Procedure The previous nomination was on May 28, 2006. On my calendar here it says we are now in July. Am I missing something here? Per the guidelines: articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated, unless a discussion had no consensus and a marked lack of contributors. There is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations. Ste4k 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I've seen, articles shouldn't be renominated for AfD for at least 2-3 months after the previous AfD. I'd like an admin to come in and clarify the procedure. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 21:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ste4k's comment on procedure. I don't think this can be renominated yet. --Pboyd04 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then pull it off, I am convinced that there are various groups that can disregard policy for whatever reasons. I read the previous AfD Striver, but there isn't any evidence in that article about anything that answers my nomination reasons. This is not about the content of this particular web site. This is about the lack of content about this web site anywhere else. The article needs to address and establish a reasonable atmosphere of trust with the reader that it isn't just some sort of hoax, or group of people in a basement making things up. Are there any articles in newspapers? Any awards given? Any mention by other established publishers, etc? The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website or content has not won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. The content is not distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Those are the criteria to meet. And there isn't anything in that article that suggests that it meets those. Why not? Ste4k 23:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, read the name: Dissident Voice. --Striver 02:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote to me "I still do not understand your comment. By the way, "Bro" is both incorrect and inappropriate. Thanks." [31]
I meant that it natural that mainstream press do not mention them a lot, it due to their very nature: They are the dissident voice, the voice that do not conform with the maintream. You expect the mainstream to report on what they dont report? To demant mainstream coverage from a site like this is unreasonable, the notablility crieteria are different. Regarding "bro", i wont call you that if you dont like it, but i would appreciate to know why it is "incorrect and inappropriate".--Striver 14:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to mainstream then, I guess it's okay if I have an article about my own small buisness' and web sites? They certainly aren't going to get any mainstream coverage, and they also don't report what the mainstream reports. Have you considered that The Rolling Stone was one time considered anti-establishment? I think it's a rather hypocritical argument that a dissident newsletter should be established in an encyclopedia that regards consensus paramount. Don't you? Regarding the inappropriate use, your comment is incorrect regarding my gender, and neither my gender nor comments regarding me personally have anything to do with discussing this article. Ste4k 16:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You did make a good point... let me think out a good reply *thinking*... Ok, got it! Well, you just stated that wikipedia uses consensus as a measure to include articles. Well, that is not correct, we dont include article on the merit that everyone likes them, rather, that they are notable. And i view a site that has been linked to by 1,078 other sites as a notable site. If you create a article about your garage, and you manage to have 1,078 other sites link to you, then i would considering voting keep to your site as well. Consired Goatse.cx, it will be impossible to get a afd through for it, but it has only been linked to by 394 sites. As for "bro", you could just ask me to say "sis". As for "comments regarding me personally have anything to do with discussing this article"... sure, as you say. Ops, sorry, i didnt mean to say "you"... --Striver 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, you've misinterpreted my statment. Your words: "you just stated that wikipedia uses consensus as a measure to include articles". My words: "an encyclopedia that regards consensus paramount.". Given Alexa's limitations, the use of Alexa as a factor to determine the notability or traffic patterns of an internet newsletter is not subjective of all Internet users. (Traffic logs of the site's servers, on the other hand, would be a far more accurate tool, but the use of traffic logs would constitute original research.) It should also be pointed out here that the Alexa traffic rank for dissidentvoice.org is 113,783 which is far less than a teenage actress who scores 3043 and it was recently determined in AfD that she wasn't notable either. So what does Alexa have to do with notability? If this group of people were truly notable even as dissidents, then the establishment would certainly be up in arms about them.
keep: Notable. Ombudsman 12:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability per WP:WEB. KWH 14:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently autobiographical article, promoting self-published book and non-notable punk band with link to subject's own website. Almost speedied it, but I want to make sure the book isn't noteworthy for a reason I missed. Xoloz 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, books are published by PublishAmerica (a vanity press), and there's no assertion of notability (A7). Also seems to be promoting a non-notable band and a non-notable (and horribly drawn) webcomic. His most popular book has an Amazon sales rank of a whopping 1,951,319. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 19:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero google hits. Mostly red links. Appears to be hoax or advert. I vote delete Brian 20:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn (apparently: [32]) (Liberatore, 2006). 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero google hits.
Mostly red links.
Appears to be hoax or advert.
I vote delete
Brian 19:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was no consensus. Mackensen(talk) 03:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor party political candidate - non-notable, Delete. BlueValour 16:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Griot and DKalkin are editors of the article (I wondered why their Keep votes appeared so quickly :-)). BlueValour 04:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, it's on my watch list. Is that relevant to anything? Kalkin 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your point? I'm interested in this guy. He's on my watch list. I'm not a fan, by the way, and wouldn't vote for him. But I think he's an interesting figure. Griot 23:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chretien might be a minor party candidate, but he's no more minor than a lot of other people whose bios are on wikipedia. He is an interesting figure in California politics, and he is a political writers as well as a politican with many writing credits to his name. Griot 16:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I think we ought to at least keep it until the California senatorial election is over in November. Voters need a neutral source of into on this candidate. Griot 23:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - indeed there are some trivial people on WP - that is no reason, though, to retain another one. The answer is to bring forward an AfD for the other trivial ones.
Keep. It is hardly neutral or fair for Wikipedia to maintain bios only on Democratic and Republican political candidates in the U.S., which seems to be the consequence of a consistent application of the basis for the nomination. Kalkin 17:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Candidates on their own, even from a major party, does not in itself confer notability. The race could be in a tiny district that means little to the outside world, or the candidate could merely be a sacrificial lamb in a race where the only result in doubt is how much the margin of victory (as in most WV Senate races in the last 40-odd years). Just the act of running for congress isn't enough. There has to be something extra to command attention, such as a very heated campaign, outrageous views out of step with the rest of one's party, something like that. --DarkAudit 03:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response - This is a very strict standard. Wikipedia isn't short of space, and any candidate in a statewide or larger race with even minimal publicity is likely to attract potential Wikipedia users who might want to find out something about their background. And as above, determining notability by electibility has, at least in the U.S., the very troubling implication that only Democrats and Republicans (plus maybe "spoilers" like Nader) can ever be notable - in our winner-takes-all system, in the foreseeable future third-party candidates will only win local elections, which is apparently not notable by this standard either... I don't think we want to reduce Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to Wikipedia:Bipartisan point of view.Kalkin 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're missing my point. I'm saying that just because one may be the Democratic or Republican candidate for a Congressional district does not make one notable. I'll use the Current WV Senate race as an example. Barring a major incident, Robert C. Byrd is going to be re-elected for another term. His opponent, John Raese, would not, IMO, warrant an article based solely on his candidacy, even though he is the Republican nominee. --DarkAudit 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, you're missing mine. :p Some Dem/GOP candidates would be excluded by your "electability" notability standard - but pretty much all third party candidates would be. That's one of the bigger problems with narrowing it that much, because it's not just a reduction in information it's a distinctly non-neutral one. Kalkin 23:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is where we differ. It is not the role of WP to be neutral or not-neutral or to be politically balanced. We are an encyclopaedia and record notable people and events. We are not part of the political process. Candidates who are notable get articles, those who are not, don't. BlueValour 23:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(restarting indentation) Comment - This is where we differ, indeed. My interpretation of WP:NPOV applies it to which content (including articles) is included, as well as how content is presented - thus I think we should endeavor to have as neutral a set of notability criteria as we can. Unfortunately I can't find a policy that explicitly addresses this issue. Well, we'll disagree, and we'll see how the poll turns out. Kalkin 00:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the arguments above, we need to include all candidates (no matter how trivial, or how minimal their chances of winning) or none. I vote none, unless they have attracted significant attention outside of the local area. Being elected is notable. Running is not. Fan1967 17:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the notability, the article does not establish any reputible secondary resources so fails WP:VER and becomes total original research, possibly autobiographical. (The national geography winner has more notability, think about it). Ste4k 20:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Running for office in itself is not notable unless there is significant third-party coverage. However, there seems to be enough verifiable third party sources to mean that it is a borderline case. One thing in its favor is that is an article not just a cut and paste from his website.Capitalistroadster 20:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whole lotta political-cruft propping up a very thin resume. Other than the third-party candidacy, not notable, accomplished, newsworthy, infamous, or important enough for an article -- on November 8, 2006, he goes back to being another political wannabe. If he wants free PR for the next 120 days, he can go elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a first, second, third, ...., twentieth party candidate doesn't make you notable. Winning a notable election does. The only except might be for the leader of a country. Royalbroil 04:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be hypocritical if we kept an article on "Clay Oliver Hill" (an article I tried to have deleted for utter lack of merit: his primary claim to fame is "show[ing] unusual disdain for the National Political Awareness Test") while at the same time removing an article on a politician who is actually notable. —Sesel 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with you. Things have moved on since 2004 so I am bringing forward an AfD. BlueValour 21:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Apparently a Counter-strike gaming clan. I don't think it explains notability, though I'm not sure as it's written in stream of consciousness SMS speak. Weregerbil 16:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Im only doing a Wikipedia for the community of #teamtNa or what is left of it on my IRC network and im sorry that it does not meet the criteria its only been a knock up job i am not going ot publically spam this link i am going to fix it up with the help of a former member and friend of mine.
Neutral. Article is currently incomprehensible, so whether or not there's an assertion of notability is beyond me. Not quite worth a G1, though. Tevildo 16:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete gaming clan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1,440 mostly unrelated Google results for "teamtna", the website listed is expired, and practically the whole article is play-by-play gamer gibberish that I as a former CS addict can barely follow. Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete page blanked by only author [33] in response to an afd would suggest a CSD G7. MartinRe 19:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-G7, page blanked by only author. However, bots keep restoring the article. I've tagged it. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 19:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 13:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete—Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 22:15Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. DS 14:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe the subject is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article in Wikipedia. The material can be preserved by merging it to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, but I do not believe a redirect should be left in place, as I don't see people commonly searching for this as a separate article (the phrase could then still easily be found via Google-searching Wikipedia, which, given Wikipedia's internal search problems, is already a more common way of searching Wikipedia). — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article documents a significant event/issue/controversy, as the many cited pop-cultural references exibit. See Talk:Han shot first#Merge for previous consensus that the article has merit on its own. Staecker 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge. There's probably a criticism of Star Wars or article on the special editions that this could be merged into, but standing alone it's a vanity/POV/cruft magnet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to vote for a merge, but due to the content of the article being well-presented and the talk page discussion cited by Staecker, I'm going to go with a keep. There's no real sourcing in the article, but I'm not sure how much there could be. -- Kicking222 18:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge. Reads more like an essay and doesn't really merit its own separate article. Agent 86 19:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an essay, and we're not Wookieepedia. POV fancruft. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fairly notable phrase. Gets 49000+ Google hits. --Pboyd04 22:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If an approrpriate target can be found. If it can't, keep and perform thorough cleanup. I don't know much about Star Wars stuff, but this one seems to merit inclusion in some form, and while I don't believe a stand-alone article is preferable, I can't see deleting it. GassyGuy 22:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable meme IMO, and it's better to have an article discussing the details of it than to let the details clog up any of the other articles. --Fastfission 00:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced - interesting article, but it needs to be sourced. BigDT 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, either to the Episode IV article or a criticism of Star Wars article. Either one is fine. BryanG(talk) 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- too long to merge. Haikupoet 03:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced. The pop culture is mostly webcomics? The statement about the line from a book being an allusion to this sums up this article well. Kotepho 04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/trim into Star Wars. Star Wars Cruft will Eat Itself -- GWO
Keep If it can be merged into an article about fan reactions to Star Wars, okay. But not into the article on Star Wars proper, which should be about the story and its forms. It can be a see also from there. I think the way the term is now used more broadly deserves a separate article. Hanshootsfirst can be merged into it.
Weak keep per Fastfission. Percy Snoodle 15:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a very widly used term ./Lokal Profil 00:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable and the article does a good job explaining the cultural phenominon. Way too long to merge into another article. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. - CNichols 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, not a stub --Yath 05:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much as I dislike trivia having its own article, this was such a huge controversy in the fandom that I can't help but defend it being a separate article. ♠PMC♠ 08:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I wouldn't exactly call this a huge contraversy, but it is worth noting. I'd say merge.--Goatwarrior 13:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just about scrapes in as a notable aspect of popular (or at least Star Wars) culture. Batmanand | Talk 18:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:PMC, who summed up my feelings nicely. Johntex\talk 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well known controversy. Definitely deserves own article. Xioyux 06:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. TigerShark 17:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe the subject is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article in Wikipedia. — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not Wookieepedia. Most cosplay organizations aren't notable. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Darthcruft. Ste4k 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per nominations. *~Daniel~*☎ 03:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 03:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, non-canon, and largely unreferencedoriginal research, especially as the very first sentence of the article is "The concept of Grey Jedi is completely fanmade." — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although we're probably in WP:SNOW territory here. Still, we can try our best... Tevildo 16:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make it one with the Force. I believe "The concept of Grey Jedi is completely fanmade" in the intro neatly summarizes all the problems with this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research by a fan. Kevin_b_er 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. — Deckiller 20:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki after merging with all other related to Wikifancruft sister project. Ste4k 20:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable GassyGuy 22:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no longer needed (it really wasn't ever needed), unreferenced fancruft. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 01:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jedi per Wookieepedian's merger. For GFDL reasons, you can't merge and delete ... if you merge, the old article needs to be kept as a redirect. BigDT 01:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for References The way I see it, it is obviously fanmade, but it might be smart to keep it around for future reference so up and coming Star Wars fans realize that there once was an idea of Grey Jedi. It also says at the bottom of the article, and becuase I played the game, in Star Wars Knights of the Old republic 2, there is an euippable item called a Grey Jedi Robe. So it must have something to do with the universe one way or another.
Delete -- I'm not sure I'd call it fancruft per se, but it's definitely fanon at best. Strictly speaking it's a product of the Expanded Universe, and barely that as it came out of the RPG world. Haikupoet 03:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jedi. The concept is actually canon, per Legacy #0, but it doesn't warrant a separate article. -LtNOWIS 06:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As others have pointed out, there is a grain of canonicity to the concept, bu it's a small one that could easily fit in the Jedi article. --maru (talk) contribs 13:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jedi. --Zoz (t) 12:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. TigerShark 17:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously BigDT 01:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 (no consensus). TigerShark 18:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe the subject is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article in Wikipedia. — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nor is there any WP:RS to provide that information. Ste4k 20:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if it can be sourced - as it is, it is unsourced. I don't question notability, though, from ghits. BigDT 01:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Another Hope, which covers everything important, and has media coverage links. Lot's of copied content as well. -LtNOWIS 06:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider adding those sources as appropriate to the article. The only problem I really see with it is that it is unsourced. BigDT 04:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MikeWazowski (with BigDT's recommendation). Bastun 10:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 03:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe the subject is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article in Wikipedia. — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if referenced. A real book ( [35] ) with presumably a fair number of sales (amazon.co.uk rank 100,000-ish - not JK Rowling territory, but still not negligible); however, references are essential. Tevildo 16:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major books should have their own article. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied, or documented, in this advertisement. "Major" books? This paperback ranked #769,537 on Amazon as of this date, down from #763,195 yesterday. I think we're safe from needing to argue that distinction. Tychocat 14:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references can show that it meets the suggested criteria of WP:BK. It exists, it's from a notable publisher but I don't see any indications that it is popular, critically acclaimed or otherwise notable. Eluchil404 01:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. TigerShark 18:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The Rebel Legion apparently isn't notable for an article, so by implication, wouldn't an article on a section of the Rebel Legion be even less notable? Notability and shit both flow downhill... --maru (talk) contribs 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, non-notable group. RasputinAXP c 03:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 per result of this and previous AfD (which was transwiki and delete) Just zis Guy you know? 20:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notable lines in the Star Wars series (second nomination)[edit]
Delete. Per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles are not [...] lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations." Failure to transwiki content in over a month's time despite ruling of first AfD. — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Tevildo 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pretty obviously a dumping ground for stubs on these lines, but this one is pretty much Wars trivia without a lot of encyclopedic value. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. May be a candidate for Wikiquote, probably not a candidate for here. Just zis Guy you know? 18:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the last AfD, it's already been transwikied (transwookieed? bwahahaha!), so I really see no reason for it to exist on WP- it's sure as hell not encyclopedic. -- Kicking222 18:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, material has already been transwikied. Nonencyclopedic, fails WP:NOT, as per nom. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. We're not Wikiquote. — Deckiller 20:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Star Wars books as its own section. Yes, authors are already listed on that page but sorting by name is a useful index. See comments by The Man in Black and Deckiller in AFD for List of Star Wars bookshateless 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -LtNOWIS 06:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, useful addemdum to list of books. Eluchil404 22:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A list of real-world books, many of which are best-sellers. This is the good kind of list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. The books worth keeping are better handled by category, surely? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A category can't place them in any order but alphabetical order. A list can organize them into series, and organize them into chronological order (although I'd prefer a real-world chronological order). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, naturally, this would mean it does not violate CSD A3 as some people have mentioned on this and other AfD discussions. — Deckiller 21:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per A Man in black. I think you may be going a little too far with the list deletions, Mike. I agree with some, but others are necessary and notable lists. — Deckiller 18:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Man in Black and Deckiller. hateless 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Man in Black is right. You might say that it should be moved to the star wars wiki but I really don't think it should be deleted. This list does not break wikipedias content policies: Neutral point of view / Verifiability / No original research / and copyright policys. Empress 4t 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This does not violate that criteria, for it is a chronological list of the books in the series; the sorting and dating needed, alone, is enough to provide an example that the article does not just consist of links. — Deckiller 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? Keep Not every list needs to be deleted. Notable list about a notable genre of literature, and a fairly well-organized one at that. GassyGuy 22:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Man in Black and Deckiller. --Skope 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list has worthwhile information in it. --Pboyd04 23:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you find it worthwhile or interesting doesn't mean it has a place on Wikipedia — see WP:INTEREST. — Mike(talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me by worthwhile I meant encyclopedic, notable, and of interest to a wide variety of people. --Pboyd04 04:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per A Man In Black and Deckiller. The Wookieepedian 00:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per A Man in Black and Deckiller. BryanG(talk) 02:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a very valuable list, one that I have used and plan to use often. Celton 04:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A category wouldn't work, as this is chronological. Calling these "loosely associated" is insane to me; they're one series. -LtNOWIS 06:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful list, sometimes lists are needed to help access the information. per above. Lynnathon 13:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Man in Black and Deckiller. TheRealFennShysa 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I, and many of my friends, rely on this list as a comprehensive guide to the books we want to read. In addition, it makes it easier to learn more about teh expanded universe by using the links contained in the descriptions. Again, strong keep.--24.107.12.179 01:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoyment or interest aren't useful criteria, as further explained at WP:INTEREST. — Mike(talk • contribs) 01:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. It is extremely handy to have a complete list of novels in the “Star Wars Universe” compiled in chronological order. It allows readers to organize and read books in order so that when previous exploits of characters are mentioned in later novels, it is understood when and where these preceding adventures took place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.118.199.211 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 6 Jul 2006 (UTC)
Forceful keep Very useful list, verifiable and this is hardly listcruft. The EU novels sell well and can be found everywhere. I think people should really familiarise themselves with the proper use of the term 'cruft' before bandying it about. SM247My Talk 08:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Waste of space. Robertsteadman 08:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, it is impossible to be a "waste of space" per se, since WP:NOT a pAper encyclopedia. — Deckiller 12:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 KeepEluchil404 01:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article is in need of a massive rewrite to be useful to someone other than hard-core Star Wars fans, but I'm not sure where a list of Star Wars comic series, most of which are broadly-commented-upon and best-selling, isn't encyclopedic. This is a useful navigation tool (or could be, after a rewrite) and the subject is unquestionably noteworthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per A Man in Black. Star Wars comics warrent their own articles, as should a list that is too large to contain inside a template. — Deckiller 19:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above, but needs some cleanup. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redundant, what with the existence of the category. DS 16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A template can be created for this. — Deckiller 19:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list is unwieldly without a criteria. Being a drama, conflicts small and large are going to be all over the Star Wars universe. hateless 20:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Better off as a template. We're not Wookieepedia. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- per Nom.Lynnathon 13:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with and inferior to Category:Star Wars conflicts. --maru (talk) contribs 23:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 kept no consensus - default to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 07:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment following up a vote below: In terms of Star Wars creatures not contributing to the fame of their subject, I disagree: the tauntaun sliced open was not only a key plot point, but it gave viewers an interest in one of the creatures. The Banthas are often used in all Star Wars Tatooine settings. A major plot device of The Phantom Menace was swimming through the core and encountering numerous sea monsters and creatures, some of which were replicated with, say, legos. Creatures' sounds are also key to the sound/music feel of a scene. Clearly, a wide variety, no, a whole list Star Wars creatures played a major role in the films and the books, and so on. An option would be a rewrite to an encyclopedic article describing the significance of creatures in relation to the Star Wars universe; a rewrite that could begin soona nd be finished in a matter of days. Clearly, the topic of creatures in star wars has plenty of significance; it's the cruft safeguard that I'm most worried about. — Deckiller 01:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep originally, I merged these into a list to get someone else to nominate it for deletion. However, we need to make sure that these do not get their own articles in the future. If someone can create an eneyclopedic article on star wars technology (or devices, in this case), then I would support that. Think of it this way; having one semi-guideline violation beats having 150 major guideline violations. The lesser of two evils is that this list remain as a "cruft dam" to provide potential for an encyclopedic shift and also to save on process, time, and lost ambition by new users with potential. — Deckiller 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Deckiller. I like the cruft dam idea - contain it on one page so it doesn't get out of control (we're not Wookieepedia). --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOT there is an old saying about disk-space and disk-quota. The more quota one has, the more quota one will use. It's a great idea to contain, but it will simply never work. A better idea would be to have a sister project that allows it to grow, along with all of the other TV show articles that can never be maintained to an encyclopedic standard and which hinder policies by existing as precedents to confuse new users like myself. Delete it. Ste4k 21:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those are some good points; and Wikibooks would be a solid place for this information. However, I still stand by my idea — we have seen a significant reduction in mini star wars articles in, for example, the creatures section. Additionally, it is still possible to provide citations, enhanced prose, and other things while still serving as a dam. Also, it (when done correctly) prevents any conflicts by providing a compromise. Containing it into a list may not work, but deleting this list and having fans create minor articles without knowing any better will, in essense, force us to deal with 80+ other AfDs. For example, one day I merged about 30 minor topics into a list. From that day on, users added their cruft to the list; not in their own articles. It saved on work, time, and it left the information grouped together for the possible chance of a encyclopedic turn. Look at Spira (Final Fantasy X), which was originally a collection of about 20 articles. It is now a good article. Final Fantasy magic used to be a list of magic spells. Or, heck, most of the other Final Fantasy pages for that matter. It can be done.
At the same time, I would also like to address that Wikipedia is not paper, which means that having a cruft magnet (that, as a collective body, can actually be easily referenced and enhanced to try to adhere to more policies in order to bring it to a closer encyclopedic standard) won't divert attention away from our featured articles. As a matter of fact, if we have to deal with many minor stubs, it may have more of a chance of turning people off when they hit "random article".
This is a no win situation. I try to look at the side that has the chance of being the less damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole (and not just one policy or guideline). We keep the article, it's still keeping minor stuff on it. We don't keep the article, the cruft will spill out and alienate many users with potential (don't worry, I'm not one of them — I didn't contribute to this article outside of merges and janitorial work. the only thing I have to lose is edit count.). — Deckiller 21:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Winning and losing appear to be biased means of judging. I prefer policy. At least I know that it was based on a consensus of those who came before me. If you think that policy is incorrect, then there are other places to discuss those. Ste4k 22:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, for Wikipedia, winning would be reaching the goal of having an online encyclopedia with encyclopedic information. Losing would be failing to attain that goal (and as I previously mentioned, deleting this list may cause more breaches in policy than this list (if it even has any), which means more disputes and the other points I mentioned above)). Policies help guide something to the goal, or help maintain that goal once it's attained. They serve as central rules that all articles strive to attain by constant editing and discussions on what meets them and what does not. On this specific level (in my interpretation), winning would be having no creaturecruft; losing would be having some sort of creaturecruft present. Wikipedia policy is known for being interpreted several ways; this is the main reason why it is often debated during AfDs. And yes, some of those are "fanboys", but unfortunately for the encyclopedia, fanboys often count toward consensus. Please note that I am not a fanboy, nor do I have any interest in this list; I am merely speaking on behalf of those who feel that this can and does meet policy, and serves other uses beneficial to the integrity of the encyclopedia.
For example, when we talk about an indiscriminate collection of information, this is often held by a case by case basis because of the numerous other policies and guidelines, personal interpretations, and so on. In short; I may see something as meeting policy that you do not. On the topic of policy, creatures are common in every branch of Star Wars, which makes up hundreds of books, six featured movies, dozens of video games, hundreds of comics, and so on. If something is noticed from, say, six different sources, it will obviously be more notable than some of the stuff that already meets policy because the human mind makes connections. If I remember correctly, that line about "it is famous in association with the topic of the list" was put in as a safeguard to keep lists that have some sort of notability, but still serve as "lists of information".
While I personally think that most of these creatures should only be mentioned in a synopsis (at most), the policy as I see it seems to overrule my own opinion in terms of this list's usage for enhancing the encyclopedia's content (and not its structure — that's the "cruft dam" idea). star wars creatures are "famous" as the policy states (and the topic of star wars creatures), and many of these creatures are commonly dicsussed because they appear as creatures in Star Wars. So, while some fo these creatures are part of a famous branch of a large fictional universe, many are, of course, not famous because they did not appear in numerous media sources. That is why the list is a split between policy and non-policy; some are notable enough in a list, others are not. That is where the cruft magnet concept really leaned me toward support in this case. So yes, while this isn't a place to change policy, it is a place to enforce an arguement with rationale based on interpretations of the policy and in relation with common sense. My "cruft magnet" idea was to provide a neutral way of compromise between deletionism and inclusionism while displaying the potential benefits for the encyclopedia.
The above makes me think of an alternative: if a creature is referenced in many sources (making it well-known), then perhaps it deserves inclusion in the list. On the other hand, if it's a creature from one book, then it should be taken out of the list. The list would still remain, but it could be sifted to adhere to a more agreed interpretation of the WP:NOT policy. If other, fixable policy breeches are taken care of, then this list would be all set. — Deckiller 23:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deckiller. Lynnathon 13:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deckiller and, to be consistent with other similar articles, move to Minor creatures in Star Wars. (See Minor characters in Star Wars for the parallel example.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a few important creatures in there. --maru (talk) contribs 00:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somewhat fancrufty, needs sources and cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bibliomaniac15 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 Jul 2006 (UTC)
Delete The 'cruft dam' argument is a non-starter for me, if people want to try to create these articles, then they need to be informed of the encyclopedic policy, not pacified. I cannot sense the good in it. KWH 04:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to mention that I see things like "fair use" images being brought here from Wookieepedia to decorate the list. [36] That's not a fair use. KWH 04:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, both Wikipedia and Wookieepedia share information via the GDFL. But even if this list is no longer worthy of Wikipedia, then I advise all users working on it to contribute to Wookieepedia where everything is separated and not under deletion. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, only the original writings contributed by 'pedia users are licensed under the GFDL. Ships, characters, and other story elements which were made up by Lucas, Zahn, and others are copyrighted by them and can only be included under a fair use claim. KWH 22:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, What if someone wants to find out about Tauntauns or Acklay or Blenjeel SandWorms? Sorry, but deleting this page is stupid. User: Shaak Ti 22:02 7 July 2006
Strong Delete per nom. Waste of space. Robertsteadman 08:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unfortunately, it's impossible to be a waste of space per se, because WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. — Deckiller 12:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 03:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Deckiller 19:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate fancruft, fails WP:NPOV (it seems to use the article creator's definition of "major", as some of these aren't even actual major characters). --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:CSD#A3 or transwiki to Wikitrivia Ste4k 21:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all StarWars lists as per nominator. OMEN 21:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impossible to maintain this list since thousands of random characters have died in the books and movies Jedi6-(need help?) 01:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable, use of "major" is POV. BryanG(talk) 02:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Skope 03:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completey pointless. -LtNOWIS 06:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't really needed, there are also, 'List of deaths' pages for other things as well. By logic if this goes, so should they. -- Gran2 15:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 03:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. Extreme triviacruft, in fact. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep extremely minor stuff, but at the same time, as I have mentioned on other list AfDs, we need something to catch the cruft to prevent it from getting out of hand. This is what we can use. — Deckiller 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Strong delete. I highly doubt we'll see many issues with people creating minor disease articles in the future. — Deckiller 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is another of those fancruft-to-the-extreme articles that should be on Wookieepedia and not here. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all StarWars lists as per nominator. OMEN 21:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should be on Wookieepedia more than Wikipedia. Jedi6-(need help?) 01:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly trivial even within the Star Wars universe. This is what Wookieepedia is for. BryanG(talk) 02:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delte. Very few of these are even remotely significant. A few manage to achieve the level of "plot point," but none of these deserve to be here. -LtNOWIS 06:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 03:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unclear what a "device" would consist of, at any rate. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep originally, I merged these into a list to get someone else to nominate it for deletion. However, we need to make sure that these do not get their own articles in the future. If someone can create an eneyclopedic article on star wars technology (or devices, in this case), then I would support that. Think of it this way; having one semi-guideline violation beats having 150 major guideline violations. The lesser of two evils is that this list remain as a "cruft dam" to provide potential for an encyclopedic shift and also to save on process, time, and lost ambition by new users with potential. — Deckiller 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Weak delete; not as many items on this one as some of the others, so not as significant of a deal. — Deckiller 01:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps we could try to divert any link to the list to a relevant article on Wookieepedia? – Mipadi 01:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That might work for some, but we may still need something to keep devicecruft sealed away on this encyclopedia. Fortunately, it isn't paper, so these lists serve as prime devices (no pun intended). So yeah, if this gets deleted, that could be a great option. — Deckiller 01:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all StarWars lists as per nominator. OMEN 21:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:CSD#A3WP:NOT Problems with lists of definitions exist because policy isn't consistently followed in the first place. Voting against policy is the same as saying, "Hey, who cares about this encyclopedia?" Sure there are other lists with old strong factions behind them saying "we own these articles and you can't do a damned thing about it". Maybe that's true, but it doesn't change my vote for the integrity of the policies they violate. All they do is set a precident for other new editors like myself to become confused, misdirected, and shown that the policies simply don't matter. And if the policies don't matter, then you might as well just say consensus dosen't matter either. Ste4k 22:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this does not compromise CSD A3, which is used in situations where an article has a lack of content or features just external links/see alsos. — Deckiller 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep otherwise we'll have a bunch of stubs show up for each of these devices. --Pboyd04 23:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually created this page with the intention of trying to cut down on the Star Wars stub articles by keeping them in one handy spot, but I believe my intention, while honest, was wrong. I'm a huge fan of Star Wars, but I, too, like to try to cut down on the cruft. This article in particular is a rather random, arbitrary collection of other articles; I think it might be best to delete this article. The same material likely exists on Wookieepedia, and I think the Wikipedia and Star Wars communities could be best served by being redirected there for articles about things such as devices and items that are not relevant outside of Star Wars. – Mipadi 01:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I was allowed to endorse you as the other major merger of this list, it could be speedy deleted. I guess not. — Deckiller 01:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article relating to Star Wars devices. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or Create a well-referenced, rounded, out-of-universe perspective, and encyclopedic article called Devices in Star Wars, which will assert the significance of devices to the various events, provide a brief synopsis (history) of the major ones, perhaps a section on their design for the movies, and so on. It beats a list of random devices, and it can still contain cruft to an extent. — Deckiller 02:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, mainly to avoid the inevitable stubs that would show up otherwise. Or better yet, write Deckiller's proposed article. BryanG(talk) 02:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are an extremely important part of the Star Wars universe. If anything, split off the bigger articles, to create something more akin to Category:Star Trek devices. -LtNOWIS 06:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are an extremely important part of the Star Wars universe. However, they are not an extremely important part of the real universe. Take it to wookieepedia. -- GWO
Delete. This is merely adding to the marketing hype of these films which wile novel when first filmed are little more than feeble rehashes at this stage acting as massive clothes horses for the associated merchandising. Let the film companies pay for their own advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.141.211 (talk • contribs)
Comment: By that logic, you say there should be no film information on Wikipedia? — Deckiller 21:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't agree with Mike's canned nominations much as it might be appropriate to some of the articles subject to his AFD-spree, as it is not a list of links to other articles, but the articles themselves. --maru (talk) contribs 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of the content of this article could probably be moved into other articles. For example, the gravity well projector stuff could easily be put into the Interdictor cruiser article; stuff about hyperspace-related technologies could be merged into the Star Wars section of Hyperspace (science fiction). Tiny little pieces of information, such as datapad, could just be put inline where relevant (example: "…a datapad (the Star Wars equivalent of a portable computer)…". – Mipadi 16:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is always a very good idea; I was talking to Jedi6 about doing that for the minor creatures. We can create a general encyclopedic article about "devices" and "creatures" in the future (turning the lists into an article), and bring details into the context. More on this idea on the WikiProject page in the near future. — Deckiller 17:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's a list of noteworthy games. I don't really see the problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per A Man in Black. Mike, I agree with many of your Star Wars AfDs, but I feel that this is going too far. Star Wars video games are notable; therefore, the list topic is notable, and since all the topics associate with the title, it's not as non-notable as "minor star wars companies" or "minor star wars organizations", which I agree with deleting. — Deckiller 18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. hateless 20:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:CSD#A3 for the same consistent reason. Ste4k 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The policy you are referring to is meant for articles that have merely links to outside sites or other articles in a "see also" fashion. This article organizes information and provides text outside of links. Therefore, it does not violate that policy. — Deckiller 00:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize using Category:Star Wars computer and video games.BryanG(talk) 02:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LtNOWIS has a good point. Changing to keep. BryanG(talk) 07:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep. Category does not organize by series. -LtNOWIS 07:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, by virtue of these actually existing in actual-real-true-not-made-up reality. -- GWO
Keep, what Deckiller said. -- supmyman7 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was no consensus. Mackensen(talk) 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - NN journalist. --Haham hanuka 14:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
170 results on Google, most of the from Wikipedia and mirrors [37]. --Haham hanuka 14:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD is still improperly listed, as were all previous AfDs by the same nominator. gidonb 16:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Improperly listing (as in not completing the entry) is not a reason to speedy delete the AfD. The proper thing would be to complete it. So, that's what I just did, added it to the July 2nd entries. Metros232 17:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for listing it! The user really does this several times per day. I daily clean up after him and so do several others. I hope he will improve his ways someday. gidonb 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to a new language wiki. There are several of these. Ste4k 22:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is NN to the Hebrew reader as well. [38] --Haham hanuka 20:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the subject of a serious documentary sounds notable. The article is in English, and can't be transwikied to the Hebrew-language wiki. --TruthbringerToronto 00:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the torll Haham is fighting against all the israeli cinema. Shmila 20:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Truthbringer. Royalbroil 05:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There is already a companies template; no need for a list. — Deckiller 19:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary fancrufty list. We're not Wookieepedia. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with List of minor Star Wars organizations. Nifboy 00:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article about Star Wars organizations. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Having an article entitled "Organizations in Star Wars" will allow us to show each type of organization's significance, provide examples, and so on. Unfortunately, since the universe is so big, care would have to be made to determine what organizations are used as examples and whatnot. — Deckiller 02:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate and redundant to various other articles. BryanG(talk) 02:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for faliing WP:NOT and likely qualify for CSD A3. --WinHunter(talk) 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jedi6 and Deckiller --Skope 03:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nifboy. Also redundant with List of Star Wars companies. -LtNOWIS 07:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per Nifboy. Incidentally, LtNOWIS, this overlaps with, not is redundant with, Star Wars companies. --maru (talk) contribs 23:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 14:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep originally, I merged these into a list to get someone else to nominate it for deletion. However, we need to make sure that these do not get their own articles in the future. If someone can create an eneyclopedic article on star wars technology (or devices, in this case), then I would support that. Think of it this way; having one semi-guideline violation beats having 150 major guideline violations. The lesser of two evils is that this list remain as a "cruft dam" to provide potential for an encyclopedic shift and also to save on process, time, and lost ambition by new users with potential. — Deckiller 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no realtion whatsoever to this funny thing - ahh how was it called again? ah yes - called reality and not even a realtion to the movies. Its pure fan fiction. Dickbauch 10:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not fanfiction, it's information from published novels, games, comics, and so on. Please read the citations. No fanfiction is allowed in Star Wars articles. This information makes up part of the "canon" (or official) Star Wars universe.— Deckiller 16:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also relates directly to the movies, especially with the CIS members. -LtNOWIS 10:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Some of these articles-in-a-list-form are quite major in Star Wars- the activities of Kuat Drive Yards (to name just one example) drive the entire Bounty Hunter Wars trilogy. --maru (talk) contribs 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete this content is really more appropriate for Wookiepedia. Eluchil404 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sourcing, therefore it's probably either original research or derivative copyvio. Also, even if it's not deleted, the logo images need to be removed; fictional logos hardly qualify under Wikipedia's blanket fair use claim on logos, and they are fair use images being used in a manner which is solely decorative. (See Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy, points 5 and 8.) KWH 04:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and removed the logos and one of those charts. — Deckiller 04:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spamvertisment and no assertion of notability or indeed how this differs from all the other sites out there that offer exactly the same thing. Ydam 21:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 03:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. In this case, I highly doubt someone's going to create a minor plant article, even without a Cruft Dam. — Deckiller 19:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a recording: "Fancruft. We're not Wookieepedia." --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty trivial stuff, not notable or encyclopaedic. GassyGuy 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:CSD#A3 or Transwiki to Wikiwarictionary. Ste4k 22:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be on Wookieepedia not Wikipedia. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what Wookieepedia is for. BryanG(talk) 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything except for wroshyr trees is trivial and worthless, and they can be redirected into the Kashyyyk article. -LtNOWIS 07:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 03:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete and/or Merge if necessary. If it already hasn't been, this info needs to be prosified into 1-2 paragraphs and put in a section on the Star Wars page to round out the article and show its significance. However, I think this falls under something similar to WP:FICT number four; subarticles shouldn't be placed when they can easily be summed up in prose on the main article. — Deckiller 19:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate list. This is a recording: "We're not Wookieepedia." --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, if needed, into the individual Star Wars film articles. The Wookieepedian 00:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... giving the references might actually be useful ... but I can't see that this list does much as is. BigDT 01:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into individual film articles mentioning the references. Example: Toy Story Star Wars references should be in the Toy Story article. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a list of movies, not really anything there to merge IMO. BryanG(talk) 02:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real content. To merge, we'd have to track down some details. -LtNOWIS 07:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete. Just categorize this or stick it into the main Star Wars article. --maru (talk) contribs 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Per WP:CSD#A3, this article has little content besides links to ISBNs and book titles. In addition, it seems that all useful material has already been merged to List of Star Wars books. Ian MankaTalk to me! 04:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I have a feeling that this information is already summed up on the notable lists; therefore, there's no need. However, on the other hand, perhaps it's a good idea to combine the lists into a "list of Star Wars media" or whatever. — Deckiller 19:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a recording: "Fancruft. We're not Wookieepedia." --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 02:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This list is redundant and a nonsense collection of names. If it provided information on all the named ships, I'd consider it a cruft dam. But it's just a list of names. — Deckiller 19:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate list. This is a recording: "Fancruft. We're not Wookieepedia." --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just an indiscriminate list of names. BryanG(talk) 02:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be covered adequately on class pages, although most of these are legit. It's already at Wookieepedia. -LtNOWIS 07:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List cruft. Wikipedia is not Wookieepedia. Indiscriminate list of imaginary information. -- GWO
Keep Hey, all, I'm RelentlessRouge. I spent a lot of time creating this list, and don't see why this list should be deleted. Why do all Star Wars articles seem to go the Wookieepedia? Because all of your invariably have more experience than me, please inform me at my talk page in my signiature about why it should be deleted. In response to Deckill's comment, if necessary, I will add a line or two for every ship. Thanks, RelentlessRouge 11:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to List of Star Wars ships and Expand. --maru (talk) contribs 12:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!!! This list is very contributive to the Star Wars legacy; Mike, this thing is so famous. Have you ever even SEEN star wars? the ships are the most crucial part. This should NOT be on Wookiepedia, because there are HUNDREDS MORE STAR WARS ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA. Are you going to go around and delete every page that is involved with Star Wars, Star Trek, StarCraft, and Harry Potter? just checking, because that's what you'd need to do if you delete this page because it should be on wookiepedia. Tell them to put "lightsaber" on wookiepedia. Whats more, this is a list, and it contains items that contributed to the fame of Star Wars, namely, the Millenium Falcon, the X-wings, the TIE Fighters, the Star Destroyers. Are you denying that Star Wars wouldn't be what it is without them? Think about it. You're wrong in the end.Craigtheomnipotent
First, as pointed out in the initial nomination, WP:NOT's policy indicates it's the notability of the list itself that comprises whether it stays on Wikipedia — not the individual items that make up the list. The example the policy itself cites is Nixon's list of enemies — in this example, the list itself is famous, and thus the article is kept on the notability of the list itself, not necessarily on the notability of those individuals comprising the list. Second, the rest of your argument seems predicated on an argument that I'm going to nominate all articles relating to Star Wars, Star Trek, StarCraft and Harry Potter for deletion, which I do not intend to do. Third, an article must conform to Wikipedia's content guidelines even if it relates to a popular subject. Fourth, note that the Millennium Falcon, the X-Wing, multiple TIE fighter models ([39]), and Star Destroyers each have their own Wikipedia articles, and so are very well covered on Wikipedia. Finally, please stay calm in your future interactions with your fellow editors, Craig. It not only makes Wikipedia a nicer place to work, it makes your opinion more persuasive. Thanks. — Mike(talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, Mike, that you have already stated your intent to put this article on Wookiepedia. If you think it belongs there, that indicates that Wookiepedia would take it without question, and since their rules are the same as Wikipedia, it could stay right here without problems. Moreover, in your indication that you would like to move the article to Wookiepedia, it can only be assumed that you want to move it there because it is Star Wars based. Is there not a Star Wars portal for Wikipedia? If that is your opinion, you can't just move one of hundreds of Star Wars articles, you must move them all. You can't move one science fiction/fantasy article to a different site and not move the rest, can you? So, 1) If it can go on Wookiepedia it can go here, and 2) if you want to move it to Wookipedia, you'll have to do the rest. Craigtheomnipotent
Craig, I believe you're confusing me with KWH, as I've not indicated any interest in moving this to Wookiepedia. Please feel free to redraft your response if you wish, but note that you should not outright remove the above text -- you can simply strike it through by enclosing the text in <s> at the beginning and </s> at the end. — Mike(talk • contribs) 14:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the cross-wiki links to Wookieepedia within the article show that it belongs there, at the very least. Moreover, I believe that much of the fancruft and fictioncruft on Wikipedia runs into a significant legal problem. It is a copy of a significant amount of copyrighted information, ostensibly under fair use, but with little to no critical commentary to justify the fair use. And yes - there may be a dozen and one other webpages out there who do it too but that doesn't make it more legal for Wikipedia. At the least, articles about fiction should source their information to a third-party secondary source. Lists which apparently are sourced to the fiction work itself (themselves) with no commentary or other transformative addition need to be removed for reasons of legal risk. KWH 16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well-said, and that's obviously why a lot of us are stressing and starting the process to attain an "out of universe" perspective; a synopsis should take its references from the work itself (or a published summary), but that leaves development, significance, critical response, and so on for sources outside of summary. Ship names are cool, but an article like the Chimaera star destroyer should have a section devoted to the name origin and why that name was picked, preferably citing an interview with the author, Zahn (and not just an entry in a "trivia" section). — Deckiller 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, KWH, that 1) there are no links to wookiepedia, only within wikipedia, and 2) while you may have a point regarding the legality of Star Wars and other fictional items on Wikipedia, since the items posted on Wikipedia only consist of information, as long as we don't have Lucasarts copyrighted material in the articles, ie pictures and video clips, we should be fine. Also, nobody from Lucasarts has popped up to annoy Wikipedia, and, correct me if i'm wrong, Wikipedia has never run into a copyright problem before, so I see no reason why Lucasarts would be the first. Beyond that, i see your point about commentary, as far as needing to justify using it, there really is no need. The basis of this article is a collected assortment of ships in the Star Wars universe, with links to the main articles. It's like the List of Star Wars races; the only reason it doesn't have an entry for each is that the authors either haven't gotten around to it, or believe that a link to the main article is sufficient. This is a relatively new article, and as such I think you should tell Relentless what needs to be done, and then give him a limited amount of time to do it. If you really think it should be completely deleted, i suppose he can take it to Wookiepedia. But I have a question. In my reply to mike's reply, i have indicated that if Wookiepedia takes this article, it must be viable to use on Wikipedia, seeing as they use the same rules for editing articles, although Wookie didn't just copy and paste. This being, perhaps if nobody on Wookie puts the article up for deletion for, say, a month, you could let Relentless move it back here without problems. Honestly, I can't see too much wrong with this page. It's just a database. Let it go, please, or use one of my suggestions. Thanks. Craigtheomnipotent
FYI:
The links to Wookieepedia are at "Venator-class Star Destroyer".
I don't know if you understand what is copyrighted material. Unless you made up the names and designs of the ships, they are copyrighted - by Lucas or the other Expanded Universe authors.
Anytime a copyrighted work or works are discussed or quoted on Wikipedia, we invoke fair use. A lot of things, like cited quotes, are common sense and would never be challenged.
The primary concerns which need to be addressed here are:
Much is written from an "in universe" perspective, as well as not NPOV ("the most powerful vessels of the whole galaxy")
Most is not cited to even a primary source. What movie, book, comic, etc. was it described as such in?
Even if it were cited to a source, we've got to add value to mere quoted material. If some SW RPG sourcebook says that it's "12.8 kilometers long … with 250 heavy turbolaser batteries, 250 turbolaser batteries, 250 concussion missile tubes …" etc., what's that mean, other than that you copied it out of the book? I think it would be possible and/or interesting to talk about how certain fictional ships might have been based on certain real-life capital ships, as example - of course that would need to be sourced to someone else's commentary to avoid being Original Research.
Going to non-fictive secondary sources, such as critical commentary, shows both verifiability and encyclopedic interest. For example, The Power of Myth is an excellent source. However, I don't know if anyone has written such commentary about the ships.
The importance of each of these things is that they make the difference between a transformative "fair use" and a simple unlicensed derivative work.
Wookieepedia (and other wikia sites) have much more liberal standards on fair use, and of course encyclopedic nature. To tell the truth, I don't know if this would be any more acceptable from copyright or other perspective on Wookiee, just that it would be marginally more acceptable than on Wiki. KWH 14:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as unverified and unsourced.--LeflymanTalk 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's verified by any half-respectable Star Wars lover in the world, and by the books, comics and movies of the Star Wars series. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigtheomnipotent (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
It is not verified as Wikipedia requires it to be, and sources have not been cited within the article. Thus, Leflyman's assertion is correct: the article is unverified and uncited. I refer you to the policies outlined at WP:V and WP:CITE for further information. — Mike(talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, unverifiable. And outrageously crufty. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Star Wars is great. But this amount of cruft on Wikipedia is not. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteX-Wing is notable Star Destroyer is notable. A ship that was mentioned once in a comic, not so much. Eluchil404 22:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an article suitible for encyclopediac inclusion. No links, does not explain the ships' relevance and has no informative value I can asertain. I note it has some lovely images, however. -Randall Brackett 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wookieepedia then delete. --Zoz (t) 13:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. The position of most keep voters is that this list will prevent the creation of fancruft articles. Articles do not exist for the purpose of preventing the creation of other articles; they must stand and fall on their own merits. Furthermore, unlike List of Star Wars capital ships, this article is simply a collection of links. This is the sort of thing for which categories were made and a categorization system is already in place. Mackensen(talk) 03:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. While this provides a great way of displaying the cruft on one source, it also may encourage poeple to create seperate articles for the red links. This is a tough one. — Deckiller 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Keep per below. — Deckiller 01:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think A3 should apply to lists, or about 90% of them would have to go. -Goldom‽‽‽⁂ 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So A3 shouldn't apply to lists when the very guideline specificaly states it applies to "[a]ny article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title"? — Mike(talk • contribs) 19:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it shouldn't apply - it doesn't apply, or we wouldn't even be here. There is content - however minor - aside from the links (in this particular case, where it says what each vehicle code stands for). Kafziel 19:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, CSD A3 was designed for cases where an article was just an external link to another website, or a link to another article (without using the redirect function). Not only does it not apply to this case, but it violates what CSD actually stands for. Now, I can understand a stretch of the CSD to cover this article's justification for deletion, but there is cleraly evidence of orgnaization, prose, and potential for prose. — Deckiller 19:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, it seems the true matter is determining whether this navigation list serves enough purpose on Wikipedia in terms of organization and cruft-protection. — Deckiller 19:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I didn't mean it shouldn't apply to lists of links with no content, that's what it's for. I meant it shouldn't apply to Lists (capital L, or something like that), as in "List of...", because those are generally considered to be their own designation (like going to Featured Lists instead of Featured Articles). A "List of" something, with organization and whatnot does not fall under A3, and that is what I was trying to say, though above user said it better than me. -Goldom‽‽‽⁂ 03:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Will likely prevent fancruft articles. The Wookieepedian 00:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if only to prevent future fancruft articles. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Some of the random links I checked out went to other lists, so categorizing wouldn't work. BryanG(talk) 02:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Category does not serve this purpose, as there are red links in the list. Content itself is no different than List of Chevrolet vehicles, which I don't see anyone nominating for deletion. If a topic being fictional was grounds for deletion, I'd be happy to get rid of lots of things, but it's not. Kafziel 19:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Categories and lists are not the same, and as mentioned above, a category does not include listings without (and listings which don't need) their own articles, whereas a list does so with no problem. -Goldom‽‽‽⁂ 19:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains no content on the entries so is just a collection of internal links. Should be replaced by a categoory. Eluchil404 22:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, so Keep. Renomination in the usual timeframe; can't cut a break here. — Deckiller 02:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.
You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.
Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comment: See the following discussion at the article's talk page: --TruthbringerToronto 00:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this page be marked for deletion, but something like WoWWiki is not - this page was actually a copy/paste of the WoWWiki page. FFXIclopedia contains more articles than WoWWiki does and probably has a much larger user base. FFXIclopedia has nearly 100,000 unique visits a month and should be recognized for that. I do believe that FFXIclopedia meets the first criteria specified on WP:WEB, at least as well as WoWWiki does. This is not an advertisement. Wikipedia is probably the last place an FFXI gamer would go to find how to complete quests/missions or find other factual information about Final Fantasy XI. FFXIclopedia is already referenced in numerous places on Wikipedia - see Final Fantasy XI for example. Wikipedia has borrowed information from FFXIclopedia in numerous cases - see Final_Fantasy_XI_character_classes and Vana'diel. There is no solid reason to delete this page --Ganiman 16:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is notability, not number of articles. WoWWWiki simply appears to be more notable overall. Since you are contesting this deletion, I will list the article for full AfD to allow discussion. --AbsolutDan(talk) 17:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the notability of FFXIclopedia is even in question. Please, feel free to browse the site, look at the number of users, etc... the information that is in FFXIclopedia is amongst the most accurate for Final Fantasy XI. As I said, Wikipedia itself has used it as a resource already. It seems the community has already spoken. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are talking about. --Ganiman 20:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory Bwithh 01:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's understandable that Wikipedia is not a web dictionary, but then why would pages like WoWWiki and GuildWiki be acceptable where this is not? Like it or not, FFXIclopedia has become a piece of Final Fantasy history and is referenced in numerous places in Wikipedia already. --Ganiman 14:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What I'd like to see from the "keepers" is specific examples of how exactly this website passes WP:WEB. It was claimed on the talk page (and copied above) that it does pass criteria 1, which states "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself," but where's the proof? Also, if Wikipedia has in fact used it as a resource in the past, then it should be a citation in that/those article(s). What we need to focus on here is whether it merits its own article. Provide sources here folks. Thanks --AbsolutDan(talk) 04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing as WP:WEB is a guideline and not a policy, there is no need for it to pass notability. And the fact that you get 26,700 hits from google when searching for "site:FFXIclopedia" it is notable enough to be added. As well as it being a great resource for FF information. What I would like to see from the Deletionists is a reason why this does not merrit it's own article when it has so many articles, and has that many hits on Google? Deleting something for the sake of deleting is not the Wiki way. Havok(T/C/c) 09:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alexa traffic rank is 48,379. WoWWiki, on the other hand, has a rank of 5,737. Also, searching for FFXIclopedia using "site:FFXIclopedia" yields 7 unique results. Searching for just "FFXIclopedia" (in quotes) yields 71 unique hits. All the other hits are either repeats, individual articles in the wiki, or message boards and irrelevant sites - therefore, the 27,100 number is invalid, and this site fails WP:WEB. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 09:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I have said above, WP:WEB is not a policy, so there is nothing to fail. And using Alexa is silly seeing as it requires people to install a plugin, which not many have. So that in it self makes your vote void. Havok(T/C/c) 09:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, if you throw that out, then you still have the search engine problem. It fails the search engine tests miserably. The site obviously isn't that popular if it's only gained a few Google and Yahoo hits in the last year or so (it was deleted for lack of notability stemming from the search engine test). Subjects here must have verifiable notability. With only 7 or 71 Google hits and only a few more Yahoo hits, there isn't any. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 10:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's the problem with "notability", as it is very much POV. It may not be notable to you, but it is notable to someone. Havok(T/C/c) 10:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that it has 15 thousand plus articles makes it notable to me. MatthewFenton (contribs) 12:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My significant-other is quite notable to me, but I certainly wouldn't start a Wikipedia article about her, so saying "this site is notable to me" isn't a compelling argument. One of the questions here is whether it's notable to enough people. WP:WEB isn't policy, no, but is is a consensus-based guideline, which articles can be scrutinized against. Show us multiple WP:RSs that have reviewed or otherwise discussed this website. Per WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." --AbsolutDan(talk) 14:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, in essence of what you are saying, there could be a small religous culture in a rain forest that consists of only a couple hundred people. Are you saying that their religion would not be considered "notable" because not enough people believe in it? --Ganiman 15:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not written about in a reliable source, then no it wouldn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiablity, not truth." --AbsolutDan(talk) 15:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to address three points: First, in response to claims that the wiki is not a web directory, I give you this page: List of wikis. If the wiki is so strict as to have a page exclusion based upon the "non-web-directory" criteria, then what is the point of that page. That page is intended to list notable wikis. FFXIclopedia.org is a noteable wiki. The inclusion in the wiki is not to just add another directory listing, but to give recognition to a notable wiki. Second, to those using Alexa as a basis for comparison between WoWwiki and FFXIclopedia, your premise is inherently flawed. The user base of WoW is almost 100x that of FFXI. Thus any traffic for a database used for WoW will outstrip any traffic for a database for FFXI. It's like comparing the population of New York with the population of Rhode Island and saying that Rhode Island doesn't deserve recognition as a state because it doesn't have enough people. The fact is that FFXIclopedia has more data about its game, then WoWwiki has about WoW. FFXIclopedia is a more notable website for FFXI, than WoWwiki is for WoW. Finally, for the FFXI game, FFXIclopedia is one of the premier websites. The fact that it is wiki based makes it even more noteable. It is the only user-driven database for the FFXI game out there. It is the most dynamic and the most up to date. In comparison to traffic of other FFXI websites, FFXIclopedia ranks near the top. Thus, in summary, it is notable because it is one of the largest FFXI sites on the web, it is wiki based, and it is the only user driven website for FFXI. - Mierin (FFXIclopedia administrator) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rolks (talk • contribs) .
Comment I think you should have explained what Premiere Community means. A Premiere Community has been official recognized by the game operator as a site helpful to the user and one that is recommended for usage. Currently only five communities (Englsih Communities) rank as Premiere. But I have to say, I haven't found the FFXIclopedia among those.
That being said, as a gamer of FFXI, this Wiki is indeed one of the best and most reliable sources on FFXI. Due to it being a wiki it integreates better than every other page for FFXI all the different games aspects. Depending upon what is needed and usefull it serves as a mere database with lost of different information and is logical connected to each other, but it also serves as a consie game guide or walkthrough for quests.
Other pages for FFXI have their strength either in Walkthroughs or in mere Databases, the FFXIclopedia has both strengths and others. It isn't perfect, but it is indeed a very important tool for FFXI gamers, used by many.
I do play FFXI, I do use the FFXIclopedia as my primary source of information on various things. Do do not play WoW and before this discussion I had heard of various WoW pages, but never of WoWWiki. --84.184.85.201 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Rolks 14:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (that comment above by Mierin, is me)[reply]
Keep In a search for "FFXIclopedia" 34,200 hits from Google, I would say that is notable. It is a excellent source for FFXI related material. --Rbunch 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the administrator of the site, I think you should stay out of the AfD as you are biased to keeping it no matter what. Havok(T/C/c) 15:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's fair. In truth, I only push the FFXIclopedia b/c of the presense of the WoWwiki and the Guild Wars wiki. If they weren't here, then it wouldn't have even occurred to me to have a wikipedia entry. However, when I noticed that those sites were considered noteable enough for a wiki entry, then ours was even more so. But I'll admit I'm biased. My apologies. --Rolks 15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although my opinion may seem biased, I have posted our site's full history on the Talk Page for anyone wishing to know more about the site. --Rolks 17:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WoWWiki it seems this entire process is laughable. So a few people who edit Wikipedia play WoW and speak up for it's "notability" while people who do not play FFXI, have no credibility in the Final Fantasy XI community, come here and say FFXIclopedia is less notable. No single person who speaks against the FFXIclopedia page on this AfD have any credibility in the Final Fantasy XI community and there opinions on the notability of the site should be completely irrelevent to this discussion. --Ganiman 17:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same complaint you have about the WoWWiki AfD is exactly what's happening here; fans are coming here and saying "keep!", yet all they can attest to is the site's usefulness. Usefulness is not a criteria for keeping an article; verifiability is. Even with all the wonderful things being said about this website here, the article still has no references and no evidence that it passes either WP:WEB (which again though isn't policy, it is a guideline) or WP:V. There's still ample time to fix the article before the end of this AfD; c'mon "keepers", make this article pass criteria! --AbsolutDan(talk) 13:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to have asked; Do you not find the article interesting? Do you not "learn" anything about the subject? That is why I never understand deletionists, instead of looking at the content of the article you automatically run for the delete button when you find nothing on Google or Alexa about it. This article isn't a stub, it's full of content; allright, it needs cleaning, but so do many articles on Wikipedia. Someone pushing random article and landing on this article might find it interesting. Is that not the reason we are here? To collect all the information of the world. You may argue that it's not notable, and I would have understand why you would want it removed if it was a silly little stub of two lines with no information about the subject matter. But this article does not fall under that. And it even promotes Wikipedia, by showing everyone that free and available information that can be edited by anyone is good. Havok(T/C/c) 21:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a user of the disputed wiki FFXIclopedia, and I have made minor edits/changes to it as well. If I can demonstrate other, high traffic FFXI-related sites linking to the wiki and referring to it's content - is that enough ? If another site or author makes certain statements about the wiki, does that meet the criteria ? Will that satisfy the Verification criteria ? There is quite a bit of work to be done to clean up the article, and I want to know what it will take before I take the time to do it. --Eue 21:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, after taking a closer look at the pages in question, I think I know what the problem was. I have removed the part of the article referring to the history of the web site. I am still prepared to hunt down external references to FFXIclopedia - the issue with a totally third party source is, that our site is considered authoritative amongst people who actually play the game - meaning almost any links thru search engines will be circular (i.e., they will link right back to us, as someone has already pointed out). Please keep discussing, and let me know what else needs to be done. --Eue 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RS (WP guidelines regarding reliable sources). Finding a RS that discusses the site would be a good start --AbsolutDan(talk) 23:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when it comes to FFXI, I would actually think FFXIclopedia is a reliable source in itself. But we'll keep looking. Still absolutly no reason to delete the article though. Havok(T/C/c) 06:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentVerifiable means "that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I don't see how the verifiable guideline applies to the current version of the article. The facts identified in the article are self-verifying. The FFXIclopedia is a wiki dedicated to FFXI and covered by the GNU license. This is documented on the front page of the FFXIclopedia itself. The origin of the name is similarly self-evident. The age of the FFXIclopedia is verified via the history of the site and oldest pages and the number of articles is verified via the statistics page on that site. The facts are verifiable from the FFXIclopedia itself - so maybe the question is whether that site of a reliable source as to these facts. However there is no more reliable a source of the existence, scope, infrastructure and statistics of the FFXIclopedia than the FFXIclopedia itself. The facts identified in the article can only be verified through the FFXIclopedia. --Gahoo 14:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Discount Meatpuppetry
Totally misses WP:WEB "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article."
1) The article does not show how the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published workd of an independant source.
2) The article does not mention theat the site has won a well known and independent award
3) The article also does not mention that the content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators. (i.e. major newspapers NOT geocities-style sites.) --Kunzite 22:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, I have been able to find Alexa ranking for the site : as it relates to Final Fantasy XI-related websites, FFXIclopedia is 4th most popular. The only three sites that are more popular are ffxi.allakhazam.com (which is a general-purpose MMORPG database/forum), ffxi.somepage.com (another general-purpose MMORPG database/forum), and www.playonline.com (the official website for Final Fantasy XI). Generic Alexa ratings or Google searches are not very clear, because of the requirement WP:WEB and WP:NOT seem to need more than just a raw statistic. This particular reference, however, is a categorised search : It is a top five site, when people are searching Alexa specifically for Final Fantasy XI. I have added this source to the article, and now can state that the article now meets WP:NOT. Also, I have read into the standards for pop-culture sites and propose that people bear that guideline in mind as well : insofar as many pop-culture sites will not have the formal press acknowledgments..... in either case, I am more than willing to keep trying, but the Alexa ranking within the subject matter at hand clearly shows the web site is notable. The article has been edited to show the correct citation, as requested. Please keep this article.--Eue 05:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to keep shooting you down, but it's #4 in a category of only 55 sites. 24 of those 55 are Clans & Guilds, 8 are fan works, and 3 are chats and forums. I do have to give you credit for your efforts thus far though, your researching and citing is good work.
Also, would you mind indicating which policy/guideline you're referring to in relation to pop-culture sites? Thanks --AbsolutDan(talk) 06:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've changed my vote to Neutral seeing as the article is now a stub. Havok(T/C/c) 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm done arguing this. You seem bound and determined to delete this regardless of what we say regarding notability of the site. Within the FFXI community, FFXIclopedia is notable. I have no clue where this verifiability requirement, or Kunzite's requirements for awards and recognition came from. You all seem to want to place real high standards for this site to meet, and no matter what standards we meet, you all seem to raise the requirements higher. So just delete it.
Our main contention was that if WoWWiki and Guild Wars Wiki are included, then FFXIclopedia should be included as well. Using Alexa, FFXIclopedia is 4 out of 55 sites. However, WoWWiki is 5 out of 45 sites and the Guild Wars Wiki isn't even in the top 10. Yet, both WoWWiki and Guild Wars Wiki are somehow considered notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, but FFXIclopedia is not. Ironically, I called FFXIclopedia a premier site, and AbsoluteDan shot down this statement saying Square Enix doesn't list it as a premier site. But looking at the Alexa rankings, two of the sites listed as premier by Square Enix do not even make the top ten, and FFXIclopedia is listed higher than two other "premier" sites. I don't know how much more proof of notability and suitability for Wikipedia entry you want.
As a minor note, it should be noted that we are only having this discussion because the Wikipedia itself has a List of wikis in which notable wikis are listed. FFXIclopedia is also notable because it is a wiki.
FFXIclopedia, within the FFXI universe, is more notable than WoWWiki and Guild Wars Wiki are within their own universe. That is my arguement; Eue, Gahoo, and Havok have provided my support. If that is not good enough for you, nothing more we say will be. Just delete it. It's what you realy want to do, so just delete it. But you should also delete the WoWWiki and Guild Wars Wiki too. --Rolks 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to add one more note before this page meets it's doom. We've put up more of a fight to keep this page than WoWWiki and GuildWiki have combined. Both of those pages have been stubs and remain stubs. They were not challanged nearly as much as FFXIclopedia has been, yet pages like Girlfriend are allowed to exist. (Seriously, take a look at that page; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dictionary right? All I see there is definitions of the word and there is nothing notable about it - that crap belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia). Seriously, what is one more page in Wikipedia? So much crap and misinformation is allowed to live here, and people with the most page edits or whatever are allowed to be self-proclaimed Wikipedia police and do what they feel based on the mood they happen to be in that day. As I've said, the entire process is laughable, and I'm starting to believe the editors at FFXIclopedia make better arguments and more sound decisions than the editors at Wikipedia. Delete this page, it's what you want, and no matter what we say, for whatever unknown reason, Dan is going to win, but at least be fair and be thorough and search wikipedia for even more bogus articles and mark them for deletion. --Ganiman 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another small comment here.. I could dig up hundreds of articles in Wikipedia that do not meet the guidelines Kunzite cited. Get over it. --Ganiman 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I love how a page must be verifiable to exist, then there are countless articles in Wikipedia like this: Evil_Ernie_(comics). This gets more and more amusing the more I hit the Random Article link. --Ganiman 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree this is all pretty absurd. One of two things should happen. 1) The more complete history of the FFXIclopedia is added back in with pretty charts and pictures so that it is not a stub-ish entry and actually provides some interesting background on what is without question a notable site in the FFXI community. There would more than likely be no way to verify the facts in the article, but it could have the unverified stub. Or 2) The stub-ish entry is left without the unverified stub. Since the facts the article in that form are self-verifying. I would think that something that seeks to be an encyclopedia would rather have an interesting article with a historical account than the stub-ish article, but I will defer to the larger contributors as to what is preferred. --Gahoo 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@AbsolutDan : The Pop-culture note I referred to was the final part of WP:RS - which states that while the site must have a verifiable source, it is understood that "due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Therefore, the most reliable material available is expected, but sources for these topics should not be held to as strict a standard." I propose that the site be regarded as a pop-culture site for these purposes.
Also, regarding you dispute of the Alexa source : the content of the other sites in the category are tangent to the fact that Alexa categorized the site in the first place. It is not, therefore, the reliability of the other sites in the category, but the reliablity of Alexa that grants the criteria needed to verify that FFXIclopedia is notable.
As far as people being very concerned about the high number of forum posts and blogs related to the subject : that is the nature of a pop-culture subject. Particularly with Final Fantasy XI, which is a Japanese game with international participation : there are only three English-language publications that are specific to the game, and the only regular press coverage for the game are press releases for the actual game itself (and its expansions). All English-language information or references to Final Fantasy XI in general derives from forum posts and blog entries. That is, until FFXIclopedia was started. But the community of people who play the game have traditionally used forums to spread information. Also, the wider press coverage in English is not very broad, since Sqaure Enix relies on word of mouth and the Final Fantasy name to sell the game; the "hard news" or third party review of the site that the deletionists have been demanding simply will not be there for any web site dealing with this subject matter.
Again, where it concerns the subject at hand, Alexa demonstrates that the site is the 4th most popular site. That meets WP:NOT. I propose that other concerns be relegated to the pop-culture provision of WP:RS - that very accurately describes the kind of site/reference/article we are dealing with here.
@ Havok - I believe someone may have added the stub back to the article to try to save it.... I have removed a large section of material that did not focus on the factual presentation/description of what the site is and why it is important (or, more to the point, why it is importnat enough to be in Wikipedia). --Eue 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:RS does provide some flexibility when it comes to reliable sources, but note that it still requires a source: "Therefore, the most reliable material available is expected..." That's assuming this site can be considered "pop-culture" --AbsolutDan(talk) 02:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be real. Being foruth most popular site in Alexa does NOT meet the criteria. I have the highest rated site for my Alexa category and I certainly don't expect to have a wikipedia page dedicated to my out of date fansite for a television show. I even removed it from an external link entry when someone else added it because I want to avoid conflict of interest. --Kunzite 05:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said it yourself, your site is "outdated", this site - as I see it - is updated on a daily basis. And seeing as WoWWiki has it's own page, having one for this site dosn't hurt anyone, nor does it hurt Wikipedia. Havok(T/C/c) 10:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the site is outdated is because the TV show that it's based on ended a while ago and there has been little new information to update it with. A site being updated on a daily basis still makes no difference. It's still the most popular site on the alexa list and has a rather popular forum that is posed in on a daily basis. This site is non-notable. It fails WP:WEB it should be removedand converted to a link or section on the game page. --Kunzite 18:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd also like to point out that this search really does not do well on a google test.. If one restricts a google search just a bit and searches either: " "wiki.ffxiclopedia.org" -forum -forums -wikipedia " (22 hits) [42] or " "ffxiclopedia.org" -forum -forums -wikipedia " [43] (40,500 HOWEVER, there are ONLY ~20 pages in that search that are not on the ffxiclopedia site itself.) --Kunzite 22:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the closing administrator: If this page is no concensus, may I ask that it be relisted to gain more input. --Kunzite 18:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 03:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong delete per nom. Been wanting to get rid of these "Battlefront lists" for a long time, but I'm already on thin ice with many star wars contributors for my merges and AfDs. — Deckiller 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, at most, per previous discussion on the Battlefront II talk page. I don't really see why this was AfD'd (except that WCityMike likes to AfD Star Wars pages), since there was already a merge tag on it and obviously we're not just going to delete every bit of information on the page. So even if it gets deleted, it's still going to be merged. It will all find its way back onto the Battlefront II page eventually. Kafziel 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per The Wookieepedian. -LtNOWIS 07:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the game page. Starwarsvideogamecruft. -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 04:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of vehicles in Star Wars: Battlefront II[edit]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong delete per nom. Been wanting to get rid of these "Battlefront lists" for a long time, but I'm already on thin ice with many star wars contributors for my merges and AfDs. — Deckiller 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, at most, per previous discussion on the Battlefront II talk page. I don't really see why this was AfD'd (except that WCityMike likes to AfD Star Wars pages), since there was already a merge tag on it and obviously we're not just going to delete every bit of information on the page. So even if it gets deleted, it's still going to be merged. It will all find its way back onto the Battlefront II page eventually. Kafziel 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? In what way does this fit that? Kafziel 22:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. I feel that it does violate the WP:NOT list policy, since most of these are only covered in one source (and are therefore not as famous as things covered in multiple sources, such as the majority of the items on star wars devices and star wars creatures). — Deckiller 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, almost all of these are in multiple sources. -LtNOWIS 07:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a surprise that I haven't voted on this one yet. OMEN 23:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 03:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong delete per nom. Been wanting to get rid of these "Battlefront lists" for a long time, but I'm already on thin ice with many star wars contributors for my merges and AfDs. — Deckiller 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussion on the Battlefront II talk page. Kafziel 20:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 03:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of Star Wars Battles (second nomination)[edit]
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not substantially similar to the the deleted article, which was an alphabetical list with no context and no format, so I declined to delete it under CSD G4. I don't feel the comments made in the last AFD apply to this article, additionally, but I'm ambivalent about this article's merits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT. This level of detail belongs in Wookiepedia, the Star Wars wiki. Most of those "battles" only exist in marginally notable licensed material, not the actual films. --John Nagle 18:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very strong delete. I don't want to encourage new users to create a battle article for every one of those red links. Lists like these aren't "cruft dams" as I say; rather, they are "cruft winds", for they blow the cruft into 100 directions. — Deckiller 19:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. We went through this recently with Lightsaber combat, which had generated an article for each "style" of lightsaber combat. And then we went through it for minor characters mentioned in licensed comic books. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George R. Binks comes to mind.) We still have an individual article for each Star Wars comic book, but we've had editors trying to create an individual article for each story in each Star Wars comic book. Realistically, Wikipedia now has more than adequate coverage of Star Wars, and new additions are probably unnecessary, unless Lucas makes another movie. --John Nagle 23:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Exactly. I tried to explain this to some of the people who want some of the other, more "meaty" lists deleted. I explained that they meet policy in their own way, and that, as an added bonus, they contain fancruft instead of spreading it out to many articles. — Deckiller 23:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is a recording: "Fancruft. We're not Wookieepedia." --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:CSD#A3 A huge list of articles nobody making lists has time to write. Ste4k 22:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... PLEASE don't WP:BEANS anyone to create articles on every single year in the Star Wars universe. BigDT 00:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per John Nagle and Deckiller. For minor battles, we have Wookieepedia. For significant battles, we have Category:Star Wars battles. BryanG(talk) 03:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; that category is being slowly reduced as battles are merged into resepective plot summaries, so that only the major battles with multiple sources, accounts, and appearences will be covered. — Deckiller 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was copied from Wookieepedia. -LtNOWIS 07:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I would hate to see a list so detailed be deleted, but there's too many redlinks, and it needs massive clean up. ILovePlankton 10:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 02:43, 10 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.
This blog has engaged with many mainstream media figures in the UK (such as Nick Cohen and Linda Grant), is reasonably well-visited, and has won some notability on account of it. Please keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.236.207 (talk • contribs)
I think this blog is well worth reading, and having an article on it on wikpedia is a good idea - it is fairly well visited, and noteworthy.
Comment added by new user user:Greg Potemkin. (Since you only registered today Greg we forgive you for not signing your comment). Congrats on finding your way so quickly to AfD. William Avery 07:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples of engagement with media figures: Nick Cohen; Linda Grant; Engage. Also worth noting that the blog was referenced in the Jewish Chronicle (ordinarily very hostile to anti-Zionist output). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.175.35 (talk • contribs)
All references back to the blog itself, which doesn't make it notable, just proves he likes to tilt at windmills; just as he writes to the Guardian regularly. William Avery 07:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jewssansfrontieres has been the subject of complaints re libel. The blogger has accused Guardian journalist of inventing material in a national newspaper, for which he has supplied no evidence. Violation of copyright laws. Frequently throws around accusations based on speculation. Unreliable material based on pursuit of personal vendettas. WP:VER Rob Foster
Welcome to another new user, Robfoster. The question at hand is really one of notability, rather than trustworthiness. William Avery 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don’t think the argument that the site tilts at windmills is fair or accurate. Jews sans frontieres criticises and exposes the arguments of prominent political, media and academic figures : E.g. Prof Dershowitz, The Jewish Chronicle, Nick Cohen, Jonathan Freedland and David Aaronovitch. Some of the posts are extremely well argued and not found elsewhere. The post on David Aaronvitch’s column on Galloway's libel trial for example identifies what can generously be described as a series of mistakes, distortions and omissions.
I think the site is polemical and sometimes hits hard and could be more charitable to some of its targets, but I think the Guardian columnist seemed to be practising a bit of dishonesty. Personally I think generosity to opponents is important, but not everyone shares this view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmurphy (talk • contribs)
Another new user joining the debate. William Avery 18:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Tilts at windmills' was out of order, and I have apologised to Mark Elf. William Avery 07:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a noteworthy blog since it has been cited many times. It passes the "Search engine test" and Alexa internet shows it to have a high traffic rank [44]. If it's to be deleted, then so should some of these blogsLordb 19:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Traffic Rank for jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com: 1,314,683" i.e. not in the top million. William Avery 20:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly there are some people who wish to see the Jewsansfrontiere blog deleted, not it isn't newsworthy, interesting, provocative etc. but because a Jewish anti-Zionist perspective is unacceptable to them. What they are seeking is censorship of views unpalatable to themselves. Hence the reference to libel, designed to scare the children but a nonsense nonetheless. If the site was libellous it would already have been sued.
My understanding is that the Wikipaedia site is going the same way as most media in the United States or affected by the latter. That is why Noam Chomsky can't get a hearing in US papers but is feted in Britain or why the NYT praises veritable forgeries, Dershowitz (Case 4 Israel), Lynn Peters (From Time Immemorial) and then refuses any response, so these forgeries are exposed in Britain and, yes, Israel. The deletion of this page, which is acknowledged as a place where healthy debate takes place, will be at the urging of those to whom censorship is second nature. In Israel they'll lock you up for it, on Wikipaedia they'll only delete what you say. The principle remains the same.
And yes, if Wikipaedia is going to fulfill its function it has to take on board different perspectives including an anti-Zionist Jewish perspective, which Jewssansfrontiere does very well.
Tony Greenstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygreenstein (talk • contribs) users third edit [45]
You seem to be under the misapprehension that it is deletion of the blog itself that is being debated here. The question is whether it is sufficiently noteworthy to have an encyclopedia article of its own. The blog will still be referenced as an external link in the article Anti-Zionism. William Avery 07:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently noteworthy. --Daniel575 12:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm researching Israel-critical Jewish groups in Britain. This blog is a central jumping off point to many of the debates within British Jewry, and a useful distillation of media on the issue.David L 13:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC) users first edit [46][reply]
Delete per nom. I'm glad the blog is useful to those readers, but it's not notable enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Tychocat 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting this page would mean another blow to democracy and freedom of speech. Mark Elf's website is a lighthouse of unbiased and honest news. There is a bunch of zionists who want his blog and hence this WIKI entry removed to shut people up. This is called censorship! Kotovasii 17:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you come to the Wikipedia interested in Anti-Zionism you look at that article and will find a useful external link to the blog there. Nothing is being censored. William Avery 15:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
William, I am referring to Internet freedom of speech not WIKI’s. But I think that given the amount of hits his web site generates it is very much noteworthy, especially when compared to the amount of rubbish which gets through to the WIKI. Kotovasii 18:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this debate about the desirability of having a dedicated article in Wikipedia seems to be turning into a "mini-marathon" (see It's a Knockout). William Avery 19:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a great pity if this blog were deleted, particularly when others equally 'un-noteworthy' remain listed. As a comment states above: the blog has definitely been acknowledged by the Jewish Chronicle and (I believe) the blog round-up in the Saturday Guardian. I think this qualifies it as noteworthy. - John E Richardson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.110.86 (talk • contribs)
Mere acknowledgement or inclusion in round ups of what blogs are saying doesn't make it notable, See WP:WEB. If substantial articles had been written about about it or it were carried in full that would make it notable. As the recent additions have shown, this article consists of a pointlessly thin portion of factual content (author, raison d'etre) which can all be seen by going to the blog itself, and a poisonous cloud of unencyclopaedic POV from Zionists and Anti-Zionists. William Avery 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent remarks on Mr Elf's site confirm my earlier comments: 'Frequently throws around accusations based on speculation. Unreliable material based on pursuit of personal vendettas' -
Rob Foster
OTOH at least we know in "Mr Elf"'s case who is throwing around accusations, whereas you are less forthcoming
Keep -- significant and much-linked to blog that provides useful coverage of a controversial and endlessly-proliferating subject. (Arguably the explosion of debate here itself demonstrates noteworthiness in some ways.) But the article itself needs serious improvement. Dogville 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It's not notable, it has never been of notice to me until now and that article was simply some mewing about a wiki reference being up for deletion. Keeping an article on the merest of weblogs such as this one would merely stand as another testimonial as to why wikipedia is an inferior reference source on the web. --Blue Spider 05:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it has never been of notice to you until now is surely of zero relevance, unless every single one of the subjects of every other one of the million-plus entries on WP have been.
I think there's a serious question here re WP:WEB, which is that, inasmuch as those guidelines (and they are guidelines, not policy, as far as I'm aware) highly privilege citation in the mainstream media, then any blog which is devoted to examining what it sees as a serious consensus, and silencing of voices against that consensus, in said media, is unlikely if that central hypothesis is right to benefit from the citations that WP places such emphasis on. Dogville 14:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This particular blog is noteworthy by virtue of its uniqueness and originality. Viande hachée 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that this entry has elicited such violent and abusive responses (on the discussion page) from Mark Elf's political opponents is itself clear evidence of its notability.R Bartholomew 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clear error in reasoning. That wikipedians (possibly viewers of WP:AfD, rather than political opponents or supporters) believe the article should be killed is no evidence of notability at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I suggest you look over the nature of the comments before diagnosing "clear error in reasoning". I'm not refering to the discussion above, but to the comments which appear on the discussion page of the "Jews sans Frontieres" entry itself. It's clear that some of these are motivated by extreme political hostility, expressed in vulgar and slanderous terms.R Bartholomew 09:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The hostile comments on the discussion page all appear to be from one individual, of a rather demented type. I think the content and style of his remarks have ruled him out for any serious attention on the Wikipedia project. They are nonsense from beginning to end. But there the fact that Mr Elf is being persecuted by an evident nutjob does not mean that on this basis he merits inclusion under the grounds of notability (this date stamp reflects the fact that I've just worked out how to sign my name!) --Robfoster 06:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Rob Foster[reply]
Delete Can't see how the site passes any of the 3 criteria of WP:WEB. I can't see any calls to keep that argue on the basis of those criteria. --Dweller 10:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was redirect. Mackensen(talk) 03:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references for any material within the document; could easily merged into one of the many existing articles on Star Wars. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and add content to a Star Wars article if relevant. Otherwise delete. -- Steel 18:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Steel. — Deckiller 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the proper article, whatever that may be. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 20:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote maybe we should create a Star Wars currency article or something and put it there. I don't think it should be deleted but its hard to come up with a place to redirect it to. --Pboyd04 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiwarsictionary. Ste4k 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yep, I had a quick look around and couldn't find an article to add the information to. That one seems best. -- Steel 00:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOR. Besides, how could one credit be equal to one dollar? Republic credits were used a long, long time ago ... so with inflation, one credit should be less than a penny. BigDT 00:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Star Wars currency article would be great in the future, but this has no useful content. -LtNOWIS 07:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 03:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Steel 18:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep seems to be a pretty minor figure, but he's verifiable and we don't have many Danish artists. Dlyons493Talk 20:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Ste4k 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything I can find on the painter on the internet leads me to conclude that he was and is a very minor artist indeed, a painting of his on sale for just €164 (frame included), is perhaps the most revealing evidence. --eivindt@c 23:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio and marked as such. However, notwithstanding that, I have to go for delete, even though I am sympathetic to Dlyons493 argument. Had their been some evidence of achievement and wider reputation, he could have been kept, but there doesn't seem to be any. Tyrenius 02:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball predictions of a future economic collapse, two references: one clear speculation, one a tabloid prediction supposedly based on the Dead Sea Scrolls. I don't know whether WP:NOT or WP:NOR applies more strongly, take your pick, this article is both. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I choose WP:NOR. -- Steel 18:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I choose both. Plus you could probably toss in that it's nonsense. Agent 86 19:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the author of the In the news and In the tabloids section, though admittedly I haven't had time to look over the whole article and for all I know it could contain original research and crystal ballism. Note the In the news section has a link to CBC and thus hardly qualifies as original research; the In the tabloid section does link to a tabloid, but a notable tabloid and the section does not report the information as fact. (It would be hard to, since according to the tabloid we'd already be in the middle of the Depression right now). At any rate, many articles have an "In pop culture" section. I worked on, but did not start, the article because I think it deals with a notable concept, like several others in the fictional disaster and fictional wars category. Note Google hits, minus Wikipedia [47]CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute? 19:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I especially like the blog entry on the first page of returns: "Years ago, the Weekly World News scooped the world with Bat Boy Found In A Cave. This week,... " Note that Bat Boy is fictional, and this is the only "source" for one of the two sourced bits? In fact, all of Weekly World News is made up nonsense. Wonderful source. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, though, that Bat Boy has an article. Your point that Weekly World News in nonsense does not contradict, and thus does not refute, any of my points. CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute? 20:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
???! Bat Boy is a recurring theme, and his first appearance on the cover broke sales records. WWN makes up reams of junk every week, and most of it is distincly not notable, having spawned no famous jokes, comics, running gags, etc. Have you read the Bat Boy article? What points do you think you have that this does not refute? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Adding: there is a Broadway musical based on Bat Boy, for crying out loud! Bat Boy: The Musical. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. While it's not complete nonsense and possibly salvagable if rewritten from scratch, the current version of the article fails a variety of criteria, sorry. —Nightstallion(?) 16:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I think NOR applies more strongly Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
update :Add referces, the article is about the hypothetical future great depression.In that sence is not crystal balling,is about the crystall balling of economist.The imf ,banks and what ever are seriously woried about ,the economy ,in that degree ,so is not OR.If you thinks it's noncence ,it's not enoughf do deleat it in that basis.A great depression, is possible only when everybody thinks that it's imposible, all the previous where suprises.If you googleise dollar colapse ,or something relevant ,your overwellmed by this.IMF and bank of asia are not anybody.And yes,the article needs work, not deleassion.--87.65.194.230 20:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Crystall balling ,in that section it sayes"speculation about it must be well documented", it seems to be the case here.The IMF OR is not OR.BBC,IMF,World bank, bank of asia, are not RS???--87.64.6.217 08:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ian MankaTalk to me! 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion among Wikipedia's editors. The aim is to reach a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia, using Wikipedia's policies as the benchmark. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or meatpuppetry.
You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.
Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Advert for a non-notable product. No solid evidence that this any more than one man's (author's) garage project.
[48][49][50] --AbsolutDan(talk) 18:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a hoax, possible WP:BJAODN. Yanksox 19:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:SPAM don't think too hard. Ste4k 23:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a hoax or spam. This is a real product which has not been widely popularized in the skating comunity yet, since it is still in production and therefore may fall in the Non-notable category. Nevertheless, the responses of all skaters who have seen it and tried it are extremely positive. I can attach video clips of its usage on ice if needed Vnenov 18:10, 2 July 2006 (PDT)
Please read, WP:NOT (specifically Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Yanksox 01:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the author's own evaluation, not widely popularised. Tyrenius 02:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! I have seen the musical skates in action, and they are truly amazing. My son is a competitive ice dancer, and I and his coach believe that this instrument would be a fantastic training tool (helping ensure that the skaters are on the correct edge, and in unison) and that it has the potential to to revolutionize ice dance by having the skaters create their own music as they skate.
Comment (by the author)If a newly discovered plant species can warrant an article in Wikipedia just because it fits in the grand scheme of botanical classification even though it might never become widely noted except by a handful of botanists, why shouldn't a truly new musical instrument (which definitely has the potential of bridging ice dance and musical expression in a way that has never previously been suggested), which has not had time to become popularized, be given the same chance in Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but why not support a truly innovative tool which, if or when it becomes well-known, could change the world of figure skating? --Vnenov 05:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's complete speculation. You don't know if it will be successful. Wikipedia is purposely designed to function slowly since it is supposed to keep record really of what is notable and has happened in the past. We can't pretend to be Ms. Cleo and just put what we think will be big. That is letting opinions seep through articles and just not good. Yanksox 05:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The device is a physical reality and therefore "has happened in the past". It has been noted by more than a handfull of skaters at several ice rinks in the US and Canada. Even though it is not "big" or will never be "big" it is definitely unique. It is probably the most unique gadget to be attached to skates ever since skates were first snapped onto boots centuries ago (this is not just the personal oppinion of the author) --Vnenov 05:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Advertisement, author name Vnenov is rather similar to inventor Valeriy Nenov, suggesting violation NPOV, or at least violation of original research. This is not an argument over whether the skates exist, will sell well, or are unique. it's about WP not being a newspaper, nor a free webhost. Tychocat 14:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am an Ice Dancer and had the privilege of trying the Skatron. This is truly and amazing device that will allow me to drastically improve my skating skills.--Mleglise1126 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete, due to little salvageable information due to WP:OR, as well as a lack of sources. Ian MankaTalk to me! 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOR. Interesting essay, uncited. Fan1967 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:OR Appears to be original research. --John Nagle 18:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking around for cites, to try to find out where this concept came from, but I haven't been able to find a primary source. I did find a critical article, which makes the point that the grading process for British school exams looks for paragraphs with this specific structure, and thus, PEE is a means of teaching to the test. Wikipedia already has Composition studies, perhaps a suitable place for such material. --John Nagle 23:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, PEE is a method used by teachers to teach pupils how to write essays. The article needs a rewrite if anything. - Erebus555 18:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, PEE is an established technique that is taught in schools (esp in the UK apparently) from what I can find in Google. However, I think only a sentence can be salvaged from this article due to WP:OR. hateless 18:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um... This acronym and its apparent wide usage by UK teachers seems to be a result of extraordinary jadedness on their part. Mind you, the company where I work has a retirement savings plan with the acronym R.I.P. (Retirement Income Plan). Neutral on this vote Bwithh 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep - conditional on refs being provided. Cut down to a simple description and move how-to stuff to Wikibooks. -- RHaworth 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll hapilly withdraw this nomination if it is rewritten to Wikipedia standars Computerjoe's talk 19:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs a rewrite. I don't see it being that hard to do so I watchlisted it and might try and get back to it tomorrow. --Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)talk 19:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PEE, with commiseration to Bwithh for RIP. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment just to note that doesn't really apply. My mother is a primary school teacher and she has confiremd that PEE is a recognised government recommendation (mostly applicable to secondary schools). So it should have a mention if nothing else. --Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)talk 13:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a cite for that? Actually, I think this does deserve an article, but a critical one, not the "how-to" article we have now. This isn't a method for composing essays. It's a method for composing essay question answers for tests used in British schools. A book written in that style would drive the reader nuts. --John Nagle 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness no no cite but I there are a few links on google - mostly on the TES site. a not very good critical article that looks at PEE. I agree it is badly publicised online but that is because the govt curriculum site is pants and you cant find any decent content on there!! (oh and remember kids dont type PEE straight into google :-\)--Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)talk 18:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that TES article above, and that's the best I've been able to find, too. Wikipedia could use an good article on composition styles. It's not adequately covered at Composition, and Composition studies is addressed to the organization of college courses in the subject. We already have News style, which explains inverted-paragraph structure. That's probably the best article in this subject area. PEE perhaps deserves a mention as a "British essay test style". Certainly all these need to be tied together. --John Nagle 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seemingly unknown. Please also include the record company, Hazy Aftermath Records (0 GHits). I've also tagged the album Real Gs, but if it doesn't get speedied include it. Fan1967 18:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet achievement or reputation requirements for an article. Tyrenius 02:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should get rid of stupid people adding vanity articles, and have also big problems with gramatics. Not encyclopedical at all. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. --Attilios 23:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable by reliable sources. The Epp books given as source are essentially self published esoteric stuff. --Pjacobi 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable verification. Tyrenius 02:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are very questionable. Netsnipe (Talk) 19:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a little premature for an encyclopedia article. Tyrenius 02:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete—Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 22:11Z
This article probably qualifies for Speedy Deletion as per A7, but I thought it might be better to get some input. This "organization" was only created six months ago, and the only element of possible importance I can see is its "awareness-raising project", which started in June 2006. Following the link to its web-site makes me think that this is really an advertisement or promotion of a commercial venture. Agent 86 19:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and what is up with that wonky photo? Ydam 21:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 03:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete no assertion of notability. Eluchil404 22:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 02:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pure fiction, presented as military history. Please delete ASAP. --Pjacobi 19:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio and marked as such. Re. the actual subject, you seem to be saying it's a hoax article, but it returns other Google hits, so I think this needs to be explained more clearly. Tyrenius 19:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think the point Pjacobi is trying to get across is that the BMW Flugelrad itself is a hoax that is only accepted as fact by UFO conspiracy theorists. It's a little too rather "convenient" that the SS supposedly destroyed all the primary sources surrounding the design of this aircraft. Even if true, it would mean everyone writing about it since has been regurgitating hearsay. For that it fails WP:VERIFY and this article should never be allowed to be recreated. -- Netsnipe CVU(Talk) 19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll go along with that (and below), unless anybody has got anything substantial to refute it. Tyrenius 02:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this letter from BMW which states that the thing is an invention. (Posted on a site that isn't too happy with it, so no doubt about veracity.) ~ trialsanderrors 21:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Someone should throw beans at GWO. Mackensen(talk) 04:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Big breasts != notability. --DarkAudit 23:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deflate, at least until she appears in a Star Wars fanflick. -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen(talk) 02:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another porn star "article" -- with a bad-taste photo too. *sigh*. I'm not a puritan, but if you are going to write up articles on specific porn stars, then they better pass the Wikipedia:Notability (people) test and the article has to at least resemble a biography of some sort. -- Netsnipe CVU(Talk) 19:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough (google search[52]) Wikipedia is not censored for children. In my humble much less revealing than this Rex Chandler and likely more notable, you are right could use a cleanup but the photo is not that offensive.--John Lake 19:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Proposed guideline WP:PORN BIO specifically warns against google tests for this kind of subject due to the adult industry practice of google bombingBwithh 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know that Wikipedia isn't censored for children. In fact I wouldn't object to the Rex Chandler article at all that you've cited as an example because unlike the two I've nominated so far, it actually reads like a biography and links to a IMDB Page. This article on the other hand is uninformative and is thinly disguised link-spam. -- Netsnipe CVU(Talk) 19:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't object to the Rex Chandler article at all just saying the Devine image is much less revealing that the one in the Chandler article by a long shot. The Devine image is just an image of a rather well endowed lady.--John Lake 19:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,The Photo can be changed or replace. But all the information is true and accurate. User:LMPjr007
The issue of this article's deletion is not over factuality, but notability. Yanksox 19:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm claiming bust size = notability in this case, but it could. If one can have a WP article simply for being among the tallest people in the world, then I'd imagine the person with the largest breasts in the world could have an article simply for that reason. -- Kicking222 23:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet relevant guidelines and lack of verifiable evidence. Judging from her Google hits, she is talented at self-promotion with her Yahoo group and myspace page on the first page of hits. However, there is a distinct lack of verifiable material from third-party sources. Capitalistroadster 20:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please "vote" only once. I've struck out your second "keep". Also, MySpace isn't a reliable source. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 05:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:PORN_BIO, which is only a proposed guideline but is very sensible in my opinion. –Dicty (T/C) 21:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They why is Ron Jemery about to be kept? Or any porn star?User:LMPjr007
LMPjr007,Please see WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO, as already previously mentioned above. Bwithh 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've struck out your third "keep". This is not a vote, but please don't argument-stack. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 05:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She's been on the Howard Stern Show multiple times. I've actually heard of her, which is very rare for such an "actress". I think this article could be expanded. -- Kicking222 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PORN BIO #7 Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets (the Air Force Amy rule) - by being on the Howard Stern show. Royalbroil 05:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OR Essay, complete with authors' names, apparently a book or article scheduled for publication in 2007. Fan1967 19:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be just an article in a book (which is on 5th ed, hence might be notable but its individual articles certainly aren't). Dlyons493Talk 19:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR essay Ydam 21:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research. Did you notice the google bomb down the bottom? - Richardcavell 23:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom has it right. Tyrenius 01:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 12:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page. The best you can say about the subject is that he will be an established TV writer/producer, which isn't good enough for WP:BIO. On top of that, page creator has already removed two speedy tags and one prod. hateless 19:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. -- Mikeblas 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither he nor any of his productions show up in IMDB. At a guess, student filmmaker and student projects? The nomination should also include his films: New Water, Grinder (Movie), and Patient 27. Fan1967 20:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated all three in this AfD. - Fan1967 20:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 12:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. There's about a dozen hits for searching the name plus one of the band member's names (to disambiguate the search from a computer term). Nothing on allmusic.com. Mikeblas 20:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:MUSIC - no record label, regional touring only. --Joelmills 00:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above statements. Tyrenius 01:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Tyrenius 01:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete university societies are not inheirantly notable and nothing has been asserted that differentiates this particular one Ydam 21:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. However, I would be interested in an article University of California, San Diego student life which discusses all student groups including this one. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 22:08Z
Delete per nom --Lukobe 08:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Tyrenius 01:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND. No major-label releases (the article says their two albums are "self-released"). Nothing on allmusic.com. Mikeblas 20:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Joelmills 00:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Listcruft, every link is red. As of now poses no benefit to anyone. Wikibout-Talk to me! 20:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note this was the vandalised version that was actually proposed for deletion.Tyrenius 03:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it has been added too, it is better but my vote stands. Wikibout-Talk to me! 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Famous Customer Care Executives? Nicknames and all? There are 68 million Iranians, so it would be hard to make a list of them -- past and present. -- Mikeblas 20:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense list. 63 million living, and who knows how many deceased? This boggles the mind. Useless weird listcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page has been vandalised. There is usually more content here than what is now there Ydam 21:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the reason given for nomination that every link is red. As of now poses no benefit to anyone no longer applies. Also note that we have List of French people, List of Germans, list of people from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas. How is this list any different from them Ydam 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of people who have self-identified to an anthropological category, I mean, Delete. This and List of people from Arkansas ad nauseum can all be categories. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 21:57Z
Keep - these lists actually serve a purpose. See List of Nigerians, List of Nigeriens, List of Australians, List of Mexicans, etc. Because a list, unlike a category, can link to non-existent articles, lists of this kind are used as a tool to help identify what articles about a particular subject or topic area need to be written. This isn't a defense of the silly lists - just the useful ones. If the list is just a carbon copy of a category with no additional entries, lists things in a subjective fashion (like "List of stupid music"), or is just plain useless ("List of middle names of people named Jeremiah who have never been in User:BigDT's kitchen"), then by all means delete it ... but the simple "List of (country name)" lists are useful for developing the encyclopedia. BigDT 00:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because we can't delete this one and keep the others mentioned (and loads of others too). I think such lists are a real problem, but they're an established one. Tyrenius 01:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as noted above such lists, as opposed to categories, allow for people who do not have an article yet. Other nationalities have them, and at the time of the AfD the page was vandalised (the first two comments on this page refer to the vandalized page). -- Jeff3000 02:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep list of famous Iranians - I would suggest a rename to prevent misconceived AfD arguments (same for lists of other nationalities). SM247My Talk 03:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it's a useful list. There are several lists of this sort. See the major list: List of people by nationality. This article has been vandalised for a couple of days and the vandalised version was proposed for deletion. Siba 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the red links are not served by a category but are useful. Punkmorten 15:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i find lists such as this to be valuable. --Drouu 04:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Tyrenius 00:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List cruft. We have categories (Category:Media players for example) that are much better suited for collecting this information. AlistairMcMillan 20:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SM247My Talk 03:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have spent some effort keeping this audio player list linkspam free so it is with mixed feelings that I vote for deletion. Categories just work better for lists IMO and they are maintenance free. Unfortunately there are many other wiki lists out there that are much worse link spam offenders than this one. (Requestion 18:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Tyrenius 00:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a little tougher than the nominations I've recently made, so I will rely on the AfD process to make the right call. This band seems not to meet WP:BAND. They have one release, which was available on Amazon.com, but not any longer.[53] The articles link to allmusic.com doesn't work, and I can't find them there. Searches for the band are hard, since the band's name is a very common marketing idiom. Mikeblas 20:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability made, no outside sources provided. ~ trialsanderrors 20:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC[54] from what I can tell. You can do a google search like I did[55], with alternating different band member names. I couldn't find anything that brought forth notability. I also tried to look up record company to see if they were notable enough to make this float, and it does not appear so.[56] . Yanksox 20:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry, I forgot to mention that I did try searching for "North Carolina's Finest" +band_member_name, and struck out. -- Mikeblas 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did find them on Allmusic [57] under a slightly different name, but with no real info. AMG says their label is Black Market Records, of which there seem to be several. I'm guessing it's this on [58], but I can't find an actual website for them. This google search [59] gave some insight, but not much. No sales rank on Amazon. --Joelmills 00:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 all. Mailer Diablo 12:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note per the official website, "New Water ... is currently receiving interest", and the others are "in development". Fan1967 20:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was one guy showed up. This defaults to a delete; that no one asserted notability decides it for me. Mackensen(talk) 03:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. Thier label is not notable, and doesn't host other notable acts. They're not at amazon.com or allmusic.com. Mikeblas 20:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An otherwise non-notable, non-encyclopedic colloquialism from some (uncited) hip-hop songs. Perhaps wikitionary, but I don't see any hope for this becoming and encyclopedia entry. --best, kevin[kzollman][talk] 20:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of slang used in hip hop music. looks like it would belong over there Ydam 21:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GassyGuy below. Unless this phrase is actually used in hip-hop. Ydam 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find any notable song that used this phrase so that I could suggest a merge per above. I failed. If somebody else can do so, I suggest a merge. Pending that, delete it. GassyGuy 22:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because it is probably expandable. I do object to the use of the term 'modern literature' to describe the quoted urban prose, though. - Richardcavell 22:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm at a loss for what else might be added to this article. Can you say more on how this article might be expanded? --best, kevin[kzollman][talk] 23:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've always wanted to know where these rappers find their 'stable of bitches', what sort of lifestyle a stabled bitch enjoys, whether she gets paid, and so on... I'm quite serious. There's an article in there. I can't think of a better title for it, but I wish I could. - Richardcavell 23:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone can disprove GassyGuy. Tyrenius 01:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was keep, reflected in this case by a history merge. Mackensen(talk) 03:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to where the author admits to it being a hoax, so we can speedy it. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 21:50Z
I'm sorry. Tag he used was accuracy. --DarkAudit 21:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are references given, so presumably it's not OR. Mostly it seems factual, but any NPOV is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to clean up, which this article certainly needs and is tagged as such. I would be more wary of a copyvio, with a machine translation from an original. The same text is also at Hito-Do. There are some google hits, but you wouldn't expect many for a subject of this kind. Tyrenius 01:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The edit-history and discussion of Hito-Do which is the same article of this page should be preserved. Hence, this page should be deleted. After that, Hito-Do should be renamed to Shinmin no Michi. Hito-Do Should not be redirect page since "Hito-Do" is completely neologistic name.--Questionfromjapan 10:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with this. - Wickning1 14:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, too.--Celldea 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge history. It looks like both were created by the same user(s), Torun31 and Torn23; he/they probably didn't know about redirects. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-04 06:10Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 12:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy tag removed by author. NN footballer who hasn't even made the reserves yet. --DarkAudit 20:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. although I'm a little confused, how someone already be part of a football team yet not even be in its reserves. Ydam 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the name of the creater this also looks like vanity Ydam 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author has removed the AfD tag. Reinstated. --DarkAudit 21:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly userfy --Pboyd04 22:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not established in the article that player is anything but at the first stage of his career. Tyrenius 01:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as copyvio. Stifle (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant tourism advertising. --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not a travel wiki (see WP:NOT). I recently added a copyvio besides the AfD and CSD because images and text may be copyright infringement. --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 21:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 12:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote procedural nomination. Been speedied before under a different title. Now the author has reposted an expanded version with my help. WP:MUSIC is an obvious concern here.- CrazyRussiantalk/email 21:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the policies. I am able to validiate with articles from 2 MCBS publication (one in Aug '04 & one in July '05) as well as an article from Birmingham Weekly. I will also submit his list of persons who have requested to be on his e-mail list. This includes major publishers of magazines such as Blues Review who have been asking us about printing an article pertaining to his relief efforst for victims of Hurricane Katrina & then Rita in Pearlington, MS who were being cut-off from government support by surrounding larger cities. Music Magazines that are working on follow-up articles are located in Canada & in Scottland. Bama.brat 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)bama.bratBama.brat 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is better sourced, but endorsements like these: Marty Eagle, owner of Marty's Bar clearly put this artist in the limitless pool of local musicians. The thing about 30 requests per day should be removed per WP:NOR. ~ trialsanderrors 00:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request, I have removed "30 per day" - please see if this is more to your liking :) Thank you 24.175.143.111 05:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC) bama.brat 24.175.143.111 05:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IN an attempt to avoid Vaniy issues, I have left out information about this: This includes major publishers of magazines such as Blues Review who have been asking us about printing an article pertaining to his relief efforst for victims of Hurricane Katrina & then Rita in Pearlington, MS who were being cut-off from government support by surrounding larger cities. Music Magazines that are working on follow-up articles are located in Canada & in Scottland. --- these articles are slated for a Katrina/Rita a year later type of stories to address the major issues and the major efforts and all the work still to be done even a year later..... I am afraid if I include this information... especially about the involvement with Pearlington, MS will look like Vanity until after the articles are made public & then can be referenced as press/media information. Any suggestions? 24.175.143.111 05:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)bama.brat24.175.143.111 05:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions in publications are ok - not vanity. Tell us about all articles that profile him - these go to notability per WP:BIO - CrazyRussiantalk/email 05:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure I am clear on this... I should mention he has been interviewed by Music Industry magazines in America, Scottland, and Canada pertaining to efforts to bring attention to the problems experienced in Pearlington, MS... that began due to destruction from Katrina/Rita... or that another fundraiser is plannded or show the date of the first one... that was on WBHM/NPR or exactly what??? I am confused..... I suppose it is dificult for me to see those highly politically charged issues from an objective rather then a subjective view..... he is a musician... he uses his music to make the world a better place thru his fundraising efforts... he donates his talent at least as often as he gets paid because he believes these things are important to endorse and to bring attention.... How can I put this into words without it appearing to be Vanity?
Oh stop it. If he was in the news, put it in, with links and dates etc. - CrazyRussiantalk/email 05:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia is not a list of everyone who ever made the nightly news. -- GWO
What? Perhaps, "Wikipedia is not a list of everyone who has received a Nobel prize" - why not? - CrazyRussiantalk/email 14:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite being a lovely fan piece, no notability is established. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Tyrenius 00:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that individual skills in online games need their own articles. Plus, the RuneScape Wiki already has an article about this subject. --Ixfd64 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering that the RS articles go into even smaller things and that this was removed from the main article in the first place because it was getting too long. Snake712 00:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', Article already too long, merging back would just be a calamity. J.J.Sagnella 06:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', per J.J.Sagnella. Englishrose 07:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:RuneScape process.PNGThis image shows the apparent process: Information is poor and scattered. It is then split, and worked on. It is fixed. And finally, it is reintroduced. Currently, this process is on the third step. If these articles are deleted/merged, this step will be broken, and the end result will not be reached, but instead Wikipedia will be left with the problem that begat the articles AFDed here. Hyenaste (tell) 02:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]Keep Ooh, my first foray into Wikipedian philosophy. Eventualism has been working in RS articles. When I first arrived, the oldest RuneScape articles were large and shoddily thrown together. Editors recently 'exploded' the big articles into smaller ones. This is partly why there are so many Rs articles. These smaller articles are dealt with, and eventually possibly can be reintroduced into their parent article. Examine RuneScape runes, for example. It first existed as a hunk of information on the overlarge RuneScape items page. RuneScape runes was created in order to: a) shrink the RuneScape items page, which worked and led to that page's deletion, and b) put the information into a smaller, easier to work with page. Eventually, editors pruned the article to shorten it, and it was merged into Magic (RuneScape). What I'm saying is that these articles are here in order to compile information about the skill, then slowly we can extract the information and reintroduce it into the RuneScape skills page, or any other page that will be available at that time. Eventually, yes, these articles may be small enough to be merged back into the skills article, but right now, they are too large, too specific, and too detailed to be simply tossed back onto the RuneScape skills page. If all the information from all these pages is put back now, the page will become what it started with, a large compilation of rubbish. Hyenaste (tell) 02:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Merge - Per all the Keep reasons above. The RuneScape article is too large. We move parts of it out to other articles, which then all get nominated for deletion. So we put it all back in the RuneScape article. Then that article is too large. So then are we going to move it all back out to smaller articles again? Where does the cycle stop? RuneScape is a very large game and any article that gives it its due is going to be large or set up as a large series of articles. Xela Yrag 17:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I cannot fathom why people think this belongs here when there exists a Wikia wiki specifically for it! KWH 04:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- If you haven't noticed... most RPG articles have info on skills, characters, etc. Why should RuneScape be different? Sure, there aren't as many players as Everquest, but does that mean all articles relating to it should be deleted? I think not! If anything, all the other RuneScape articles should be brought back (see the Zezima talk page). User:Merlin Storm04:58, 7 July 2006 05:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Tyrenius 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a small piece of software without importance - WP:SOFTWARE. Prod contested by the author of the article - he says that it is "rather innovative", but does not cite sources for it. Ioannes Pragensis 21:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CPU usage monitors are a dime a dozen. Nothing notable about this one. --Pboyd04 22:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pboyd04. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-02 22:33Z
Delete per above. OMEN 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 but needs cleanup. Tyrenius 00:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep, may be notable according to a substantial number of Google hits (although many of these are restricted to Wikipedia, or to mirror sites). I find that religious controversies, and especially those in larger dominations, such as the Presbyterian church, are notable. Also, I see no real argument made on the part of the nominator as to why this article should be deleted. For these reasons, I will vote for a nominal keep - and I will vigilate this entry to see where public support when lie. Also, if POV is severe, it may be rewritten or carefully taken out. Other than that, take real care, OMEN 22:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new coverage, and POV is not a reason for deletion. It just needs a clean up. --Pboyd04 22:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with leave to re-present if nobody cleans the thing up. I've got to think that there's some irony here somewhere along the line considering the whole apartheid fork thing ... BigDT 00:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. --TJive 05:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep if accuracy checks out. Otherwise delete as nonsense. --Wetman 21:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Tyrenius 00:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page either needs to be completely rewritten or deleted. Seems to be a nn baseball league Pboyd04 22:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only of local importance. -- Mikeblas 15:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely nn --AlexDW 17:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Suburban Milwaukee summer high school league not even followed by the local paper -- Nate 09:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Tyrenius 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another in the long list of hoax articles about the supposed Eyre legend. The surces merely mention that there was a person named Manuel Eyre who was a shipbuilder, nothing in the linked sources indicate that he was important or notable, nor that he was even the brother of the supposed Jehu Eyre, merely that the two served in the same unit during the Revolutionary War. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Eyre. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. OMEN 22:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure if this is a hoax, but there is no evidence of sufficient notability either. Note that there this guy's son, Manuel Eyre Jr., is sometimes called the founder of Delaware City, Delaware as in this description of a bunch of books he owned that are for sale (note that it is the interest of the seller to claim that he was the founder). However other sources such as Delaware City's own official website claim only the Newbold family as the city's founders. This source states that Manuel Eyre Jr. was just someone who bought land from the Newbolds after the Newbolds had already founded the city. Bwithh 00:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provided are mostly unreliable, and seem to be almost randomly chosen, since they provide NO coherent backing for the claims in the article itself. --Calton | Talk 00:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was no consensus. Mackensen(talk) 03:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there cause is very admirable, but I don't think this is very notable. --Pboyd04 22:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I agree with the admirablity (hense the work I just did) and as it was there were issues, but I just spent 10 minutes researching it and have updated the page with some notability and links. Form maybe off, but it aint worthy of deletion.--Gay Cdn 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm keeping the nomination open. A couple of notable board members does not make the venture notable. --Pboyd04 23:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 but could be recreated if written properly and not a massive PR puff. Tyrenius 00:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per plain common sense. OMEN 23:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm from Albuquerque, and even I don't think this is notable enough for an article. --NMChico24 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before the Public Relations 'team' adds more crap. - Richardcavell 00:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massive rewrite if not rewritten then delete and fire the PR team. Or leave them in the path of the shootout Fiddle Faddle 06:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this film festival in detail I can see that it is actually a notable festival. My vote for deletion was a gut reaction to the article itself, which was wrong. The festival itself attracts many pieces of coverage in diverse media judging by the site names in the Ghits and appears to be notable as a (probable) pioneer in film festivals and a place for aspiring film-makers to work under substantial pressure in a competitive environment. So I have changed my opinion. I have also drawn the creator's attention to the state of the article both on the talk page and on his talk page, working on "don't bite the newbies" as a principle (only very few contributions). The article sucks, though, as it is now. Fiddle Faddle 06:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Tyrenius 00:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being "best known" for two roles as "Man #1" back in 1982 does not seem to justify an entry here. Joyous! | Talk 22:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously I really enjoy this article. "Best known" for, a.k.a. "only known" for, a.k.a. "not known" for. -- Kicking222 23:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviouslyOMEN 23:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not even close. --Calton | Talk 00:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not speedy, as there is a claim to notability. Tyrenius 01:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange new meaning of "notable" that I was previously unaware of. --Calton | Talk 04:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia rules, Bergeron is notable as he appeared on a hit show on a major American television network. Aaronproot
Comment As Man #1. The character didn't even warrant a name. that does not meet notability standards. --DarkAudit 03:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, which provides for the inclusion of "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions," and then states that "Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers; A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following; An independent biography; Name recognition; Commercial endorsements." I think it's safe to say that playing "Man #1" failed to garner Mr. Bergeron such notability. --Metropolitan90 03:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --DarkAudit 03:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Joyous! | Talk 04:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn group of doctors. --Pboyd04 22:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator. - Richardcavell 23:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SM247My Talk 03:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn per above. --AlexDW 17:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Tyrenius 00:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite also thinking it may be a useful tool, the article does not meet WP:WEB nor WP:ADS.--Gay Cdn 23:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this is not an advertisment, it's a description of a top rank torrent site which is offering a new way of web searching. I hope this is not a war on torrent sites! walidaly 23:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user has less than 20 edits, all to this article alone.Zzzzz 13:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by "I believe this is not an advertisment": since you are the one who created the article, you should know for sure if it is or not, no ? Schutz 12:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Zzzzz' you set all torrent sites articles on one day for deletion, so what, you woke up and decide to delete all those torrent sites articles? walidaly 13:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Schutz' of course it's not an ad, it's a 'DESCRIPTION' of a service related to Bitorrent which a lot of internet users use for file sharing and need to know about walidaly 13:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an advertisement. --AlexDW 17:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per walidaly. Royalbroil 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website, WP:WEB. Schutz 12:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an ad. An ad for nothing more than a torrent site. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --DarkAudit 13:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schutz. (Disclaimer: I was contacted via talk regarding this discussion.) Sandstein 13:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Advert. wp:NOT Brian 13:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Delete. It's just a torrent site. --Coredesattalk. o.o;; 23:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge this and all other torrent search and meta-search sites into a new article such as BitTorrent search website. —Quarl(talk) 2006-07-06 06:45Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was no consensus. Mackensen(talk) 03:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could probably be PROD'ed but I really wasn't sure what comprised notability of a hacking group. So I put it here instead. --Pboyd04 23:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Many thousand Ghits, but mainly forum posts and blogs from what I can see. SM247My Talk 03:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have had news appearances due to their hacking famous websites, such as, CyberNanny, Noted by the US Attorney's Bulletin in reference to "Responsible hackers", for winning categories in the "State of the Hack Awards"[60]. There are others, as a Google search without blogs in it [61] returns at least 20,000 hits. Noted by Security and Anti-virus companies makes them notable enough for me. Ansell 07:12, 9 July 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 KeepEluchil404 02:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability. Band does not seem to have been stable and productive enough to warrant its own article. - Richardcavell 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joelmills. Royalbroil 05:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Joyous! | Talk 04:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable band. No assertion of significance. Google returns a whopping one result. IslaySolomon 23:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ((db-bio)) tag added. Nn.--Andeh 23:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jaranda speedied this article as an A7. Unfortunately it's not, as the article states that they are "one of the finest ska bands of all time". Sounds like it isn't verifiable though, so delete slowly unless references added before end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 00:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Can't find anything except above result, a comment on a forum. --Joelmills 01:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails google test Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "Skippy The Fridge". Xsxex 19:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was salt the earth. Mackensen(talk) 03:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was already deleted once through prod process; was recreated, prod tagged again; prod tag as removed without comment. Non-notable band; no evidence that it satisfies any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block from recreation. --Pboyd04 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local band only, no label or albums. --Joelmills 01:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect per above. SM247My Talk 03:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 referenced, verifiable rewrite initiated by Christopher Thomas -- Samir धर्म 22:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally prodded by Snacky with the reason "This article is almost entirely composed of unverifiable original research, and it appears to be primarily a vehicle for spamming Michael E. Thomas's webpage." Prod removed by author, nominated for AfD by Snacky. This is a procedural completion of the AfD nomination - my own opinion is Neutral.Tevildo 12:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The technology isn't apparent and there are references to the technology at the bottom of the page. I suggest Snacky study the technology. This nanotechnology is cutting edge and not easily understood by the layman.user:holoman 3 July 2006
This is holoman (talk • contribs)'s 22nd edit. Half of his edits are to this article. The other half are almost all additions of links to storage-related articles (mostly reverted by other editors). --Christopher Thomas 17:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely rewrite. I've already taken a stab at this, but it needs more editing by experts in the field who can vett the publications listed. If it can't be properly verified, delete. --Christopher Thomas 17:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My rewritten version. I've finished grinding through the references, and the phenomenon described is real and well-published. The rewrite linked should be sane and reasonably accurate. --Christopher Thomas 04:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Article is hereby completely with drawn by Holoman and any further inclusion by wikipedia will end with an injuntion from an attorney. No further interest in wikipedia. [holoman]
Please review WP:NLT. This is especially silly given that you released the content under GFDL when you contributed it (as stated underneath the edit box used to make any change). --Christopher Thomas 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G6 per holoman's withdrawal.Tevildo 21:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not housekeeping. The closest would be CSD G7: "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created." [emphasis added] — Laura Scudder☎ 15:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2nd request - Please delete my technology from your website. I again read a rewrite that is inaccurate. I do not want my technology misused and misunderstood by the imcompetent scientist rewriting something they have ZERO understanding as it shows in their writings.holoman
Comment, to holoman. As Christopher points out above, when you uploaded your article to Wikipedia, you released it into the public domain under the GFDL. Anyone is now entitled to make any (legal) use of it they like, and you are no longer in a position to assert copyright or other intellectual property rights over it. I should also point out that threatening legal action is grounds for your indefinite suspension from Wikipedia, per WP:LEGAL. Thank you. Tevildo 13:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright or other rights have been granted in writing or released. You need to study US copyright and patents laws. This is exactly my point. This website continually provides misinformation and inaccuracy to the public. Your not serving the scientific or public with the dissemination of wrongful information, facts, and theories. And the wikipedia staff of writers definitely have no integrity or honor.holoman
In the interests of disclosure, here is Holoman's draft of the article prior to my attempt at revising it, and my rewrite. Terms like "popular inversion" (where population inversion was meant) in Holoman's draft do not inspire confidence in his accusations or his claim to be the person who developed any part of this technology, but I was careful to flag my rewrite for verification and expert review in case there were parts I'd misinterpreted regardless. --Christopher Thomas 03:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: My most recent rewrite was checked against the references and should be accurate. I work in an optics lab; as far as I can tell from the reference content, I have sufficient expertise to confirm my rewrite's accuracy. Several of User:Holoman's statements, especially in his original version, were just plain incorrect. His rewritten version of my first rewrite was better, but not much. Detailed discussion is at Talk:Photon induced electric field poling. --Christopher Thomas 04:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh. I just read the above. FWIW, I support Christopher Thomas'es re-write. The original posted by User:Holoman was gibberish, and used incorrect terminology juxtaposed in non-sensical ways. The article, as it currently stands, appears to make sense and to be a coherent description of a process that might possiblly work.linas 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly hope it works, given that it's been published about :). This actually turns out to be a phenomenon I'd been meaning to track down for a while (read a popular press article about some form of electro-optic effect being used to "freeze" holographic fringe patterns into a storage medium for later interrogation, but had long-since forgotten the details when I needed to look it up again). --Christopher Thomas 02:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Christopher's rewrite. Tevildo 11:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; its not gibberish and seems to make physical sense, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. First sentence needs work, as it seems to start describing a solar panel. linas 14:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Joyous! | Talk 04:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax; I'll just repeat what I put on the article discussion page: Googling "breakfast with andy" pbs yields no links except to Wikipedia and mirrors thereof. Similar for "folger county public television" or "breakfast with andy" "andy pantz". Also, the FCC shows no sign of the alleged "WJJC-TV" in the screencap. [63] — stickguy (:^›)—home - talk - 00:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. — stickguy (:^›)—home - talk - 00:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good research by nom. Also googling "breakfast with andy" "Andy Pantz" gives only the wiki article. Tyrenius 00:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX Only WJJC I found was an AM radio station. --DarkAudit 02:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SM247My Talk 03:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. If you can't find legitimate information about this on the Web, you're not trying hard enough. 71.101.132.238 12:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If that is the case, why is there not even a reference to a place in Pennsylvania called 'Slimbean' to be found anywhere, let alone a reference to this purported show? SM247My Talk 19:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look harder. 71.122.65.127 02:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can assist us with some links regarding the subject matter? -- Kirby1024 02:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not my job, nor the job of anybody here, to find stuff that does not exist. This is rubbish and I believe everybody here knows it. SM247My Talk 06:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well I guess you can't prove a negative!!! By the way, would anybody like to know what I stuck up my butt today? 71.101.138.186 11:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopeless hoax. Even the town name is fake. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.Joyous! | Talk 04:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-encyclopedic entry of a non-noteworthy secondary school Akradecki 00:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After the cleanup mentioned below, I can see it's value...I'll say keep, and I'd withdraw if I knew how.... Akradecki 04:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Keep but then again I think all secondary schools should be included. --Pboyd04 00:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I disagree that high schools are notable/should be included on Wikipedia, they are. OMEN 00:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because a)I've cleaned it up and the nom refers to previous poor state of article b)the school was given Specialist Science College status in 2003. Tyrenius 00:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A stub, but the school dates the the 19th century. --JJay 00:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cleaned up so its now fine as a stub. BlueValour 01:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep secondary schools are kept as a matter of course. SM247My Talk 03:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, high schools are notable and its status makes it even more notable. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no notablity asserted for this school... and yet again we see repeated misinformation being spread regarding schools on Wikipedia. They are not inherently notable, and there is no precedent for automatically voting keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Education... usually no consensus, mostly thanks to the sheer amount of misinformation that is spread around. And Wikipedia:Notability_(schools)/Arguments for a summary of the keep/delete arguments. Neither is there any Wikipedia schools policy. In short, each AFD case should be considered on its own merits and blanket statements abouts all schools are mere hand-waving. In this particular case: my last house was built in 1862, earlier than this school. My house is not notable either. There's actually more information about the local politician who laid the foundation than the school itself. It's just not notable enough for its own article. - Motor (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SCHOOLS isn't policy, and this is just another school. Appears to be old, but really isn't by British standards. -- GWO
Keep — As always, notability is in the eye of the beholder. Statements to the contrary, I find most high schools and their equivalent to be notable institutions; at least as much your typical village or hamlet article. Endlessly rehashing statements about the validity of WP:SCHOOLS hasn't swayed my position. If the WP:SCHOOLS article didn't reach a positive consensus on schools, neither did it do so in the negative. Ergo my preference is to keep. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schools are important. Ramseystreet 04:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is a important high school and nominator has withdrawn Yuckfoo 21:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Joyous! | Talk 04:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, vanity Sue Anne 00:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. - Sue Anne 00:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They may be creative, enterprising and enthusiastic, but they have not as yet achieved a significant reputation to merit an article. Tyrenius 00:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, vanity at present. SM247My Talk 03:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, and look at those redlinks --AlexDW 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I second (or third or fourth...) the vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookgrrl (talk • contribs)
Comment It's not a vote. SM247My Talk 01:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Tyrenius 01:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This list is a good idea that hasn't really worked. If this list was complete, it might be useful. However, it is a very partial list and there seems no prospect of it ever being completed. The Television films category is far more complete. While it does say which organisation made the film, this information is contained in the articles themselves. Consequently, I think that we should Delete. BlueValour 00:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Listcruft, categorise, I would warrant even US TV movies would be too long let alone all the other nations' works. SM247My Talk 03:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally listcruft, rather pointless if we list all the TV movies here (US has tons of them) and if including all over the world, its simply too much. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are non-arguments. --TJive 05:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because...? SM247My Talk 23:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise. Listcruft. If a TV Movie gets an article, it'll make it to a category. If it doesn't this list is simply indiscriminate information. --- GWO
Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete this listing. Sure it needs to be made more complete, but so what? This informati os very useful.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - brenneman{L} 04:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article went through an AfD vote last month but I believe it was wrongly decided. There is a very clear pattern of sock/meatpuppeting in the vote. Of the 17 "keep" votes, all but four were recorded from anonymous IP address and new user accounts; another was recorded from User:Sussexman who has since been indefinitely banned. Of the seven "delete" votes, only one was recorded from an anonymous IP address. In view of the apparent attempt at vote stacking, I believe the anonymous/new votes should have been discarded. This would have resulted in the vote being 6-4 in favour of deletion. I have re-listed this article for deletion in the light of the clear abuse of process. Votes from anonymous IPs and new user accounts will NOT be counted given the previous, externally-directed attempt to stuff the ballot. I will not be voting, but I will be keeping an eye on proceedings. -- ChrisO 23:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason given for deletion in the original AfD stated:
Vanity article about a marginal figure whose main contribution seems to be writing letters. Replete with original reserach. Homey 02:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my judgment his political campaigning activities make him clearly notable. David | Talk 23:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
his letters have appeared in The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph does not establish notability. Neither does a list of self-authored sources. If others (reputable sources) have written about him he's notable. As of now, Weak Delete. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Lexis-Nexis Euro search retrieves 17 hits over the last ten years, most of which are his letters, but there are some scraps of minor notability ca. 1997-2001. Modify to weak delete. ~ trialsanderrors 00:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I observed that the process was deeply flawed last time around, but I still think he's notable enough for an article. CJCurrie 23:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't agree with his politics, but I don't think that's any reason to remove articles. He is, in his own way, reasonably significant. RobinCarmody
Delete I don't see what he's done that is of any notability. Homey 04:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a political nobody who's career seems to consist of letters to the papers and what appear to be self-published newletters. --Charlesknight 12:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I count three letters written by Milson on The Times website [64], but no articles actually written about him. Not very notable for a British political activist. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 12:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Millson was mentioned in an article by Dominic Kennedy entitled "Griffin's views 'are shared by many Tories'" which appeared on page 10 of The Times of August 25, 2001, and in a correction to that article published on August 27. He was also mentioned in a David Aaronovitch column of August 2, 2005 which appeared on page 14. I can get a comprehensive list of press articles in which he has appeared in recent years (separating from letters written by him) if it would be useful. David | Talk 13:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But has anyone in the British mainstream press actually profiled him? Or are they always snippets and/or a single quote from him each time? Also: 0 mentions of him on bbc.co.uk. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 18:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. As per the Lexis-Nexis search, we're talking about scraps. ~ trialsanderrors 18:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, from the article (and google) he's a letter writer, self-publisher and minor political activist. Fails WP:BIO - Motor (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity/torycruft, of the type loved by unlamented Sussexman. Wikipedia is not a list of everyone ever mentioned in a newspaper article. -- GWO
Delete Writing letters to the papers and self-publishing a few pamphlets doesn't constitute notability. "Vanity article" sums it up, I think. --Stephen Burnett 23:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He appears to be only a very minor figure. Endomorph
Delete. I'm sorry it didn't go first time. Back on 2006-06-04 I said that this article was NN and POV, but entertaining. Now it is a shambling mess, STILL without citations. I'm guessing that, after a month of discussion, the lack of citations points strongly towards a case for NN deletion. --die Baumfabrik 00:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
OCKER (TALK) 23:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![[36]](/en/Image:GreaterKraytVSCanyonKrayt.JPG){kind=link}