< May 7 May 9 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

May 8

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 01:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Hill (film) Soundtrack

[edit]

Article about a soundtrack that doesn't exist (it simply attempts to run down the music played in the movie and when), and there is no sign that one ever will. Delete as original research on a non-notable topic. --InShaneee 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete and merge to Silent Hill (film) useful content, more of a fancruft thing and original research. --Terence Ong 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn; keep without prejudice to any further nomination by any party after one month from closure. Metamagician3000 11:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structures of the GLA

[edit]

Manual of little importance to either the wikipedia project or its parent page Lakhim 00:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. I never knew I was going to create such a firestorm. My main point is that as it stands the article provides nothing to the wikipedia project that isn't present in a manual already and is far too focused and technical on this one topic. We're an encyclopedia here, not a guide for those who want to play C&C generals. It is a fine game, but as it stands the article is too far gone for saving. Perhaps a better idea would be to revise it to point how all of the GLA structures are different from the other sides, but as of now it's simply a laundry list of buildings with no attempt to point out how this is notable. To TomStar: Would it be an amicable solution to simply combine all of the structures lists into one page and simply point out the basic differences between the structures/how they affect strategy? I think this would solve most problems with a manual and better preserve the thrust of the "Structures of the *blank*" pages --Lakhim 23:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: Some delete votes prior to 9 may 2006 may not be reflective of a vote on the compromise reached between myself and Tomstar/the GLA editors. This is not to say that all delete votes are invalid before then, but rather that they were cast before an agreement to radically change the nature of the article was reached. Some users, however, are still requesting deletion despite this agreement. --Lakhim 20:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE NOTE: User:TomStar81 has posted notices to six users' talk pages (specifically those of gamers) alerting them to this page's deletion debate and urging them to save it. See: User_talk:Mrbowtie#Deletion_Emergancy.21. Aplomado talk 07:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to explain. This was part of a much broader overhaul that the six of us agreed to. I have been creating the new templates and associated pages, and they have been helping to clean up the spelling, fix the grammar, check the facts, and so forth. Given that the six of us have put so much work into the article(s) it seems only fair that they be alerted to this sudden development. If you wish to prove this you can check the talk pages and histories of the users I have contacted; all have had a big role in this new design. I am not out to inflate the vote in my favor, and I understand fully that in the end all articles are subject to community consensus. If I have gone against a policy or rule by alerting these six users than I sincerly apologise, and as per the law of equivilent exchange I will accept whatever punishment the community deems nessicary. TomStar81 08:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: TomStar81 is the creator and primary contributor of this article. Aplomado talk 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been asked by the creator of this article to vote in favor of keeping the article. Aplomado talk 07:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been asked by the creator of this article to vote in favor of keeping the article. Aplomado talk 07:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 09:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Superman

[edit]

Documents as if true a very unknown and unreported, unverifiable "curse" on Superman actors; not only is this probably a joke, it is certainly not notable in an encyclopedia.  Alfakim --  talk  00:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Recommend nominating the articles separately instead. Mailer Diablo 03:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of Mercury

[edit]

This article is speculative, unsourced and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of Mercury should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. I am also listing the related articles Colonization of Venus, Colonization of the Moon, Colonization of Mars, Colonization of the asteroids, Colonization of the outer solar system and Colonization of Titan - they all discuss future 'events' which probably will never happen. Worldtraveller 00:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is fair. There was one proposal that seems to be largely opposed, so now we have to go back and add our comments to six different articles?--agr 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second this. The core arguments being discussed on this page are not based on Mercury, but broadbased and could be applied to all. Why not delete Space Colonization entirely if we're going to follow the logic being applied by those who want to delete. After all, it's speculative and talking about possible future events. I think this discussion page should be used for all of these articles. We will spread our wings and fly. And we have to foster dreams to keep that a potential. The alternative is unthinkable. Chadlupkes 13:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. colonization of space is a valid, legitimate WP article and scientific concept and this is not at issue here. The issue is the clutter effect of creating a lot of tiny splinters. As I said in my note for Titan below, I think we should try to fit all ideas in either colonization of space or the outer solar system and only split off once they get too big. Crum375 15:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles are already split off, and have a solid navigation system to enable people to move among them, why do the work to combine them now and then have to reverse that work when people start paying attention to them? With the navigation, I think they're fine broken apart like they are. Chadlupkes 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what's the timeline we will accept? We will eventually have people on the Moon and Mars. That's probably within the next 20-40 years. Maybe Mercury will have to wait a few hundred years, but I personally doubt it, at least not if we can actually get something moving. The future is a long time. Will we prevent discussion on extra-solar colonies using the same logic? What about permanent science stations on the floor of the Oceans? We can't limit ourselves to 5-10 years on Wikipedia, not if we want to give our readers & editors the idea that what they write and work on will be read by people beyond that timeframe. We will eventually reach Mercury. It's a matter of time and will. And we have plenty of both. Chadlupkes 17:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not paper. If and when those things happen, and if Wikipedia still exists at that point (which is highly unlikely), then the articles can be created. We don't need to make articles for every possible future event just in case it eventually happens. An article takes two minutes to create; there's no need to get a jump on things decades or centuries in advance. And, yes, I would advocate deleting any of the other examples you've given. Man hasn't even set foot on the moon in three decades; there's no reason to think we're about to start growing alfalfa there or something. Kafziel 17:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 25th International Space Development Conference was this last weekend. I think Wikipedia or some evolution of it will exist quite far in the future. At least I hope so. Chadlupkes 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. 25 conferences and how many planets/moons/asteroids have they colonized? Not a one. No reason to think anything will be different by conference #50 or 100. I'd like to think Wikipedia will be around in the future, but there's really no basis for that. There's no reason to even assume that the Internet itself will be around at that point. The colonization of the outer planets is at least a paradigm shift or two away. Kafziel 18:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, if you ask anyone in the NewSpace community, they will tell you that with sufficent capital investment they could do all of these things immediately. The Space Elevator being developed by Liftport has an estimated development cost of $10 Billion. That's accessible from any number of governments, corporations and even individuals or coalitions. How many conferences occured among ship captains in the 1300's talking about the potential for an ocean route to the West Indies? We'll never know. 33 years ago, we were on the moon. We will go back, unless naysayers continue to prevent it. Yes, we have a lot of work to do here, but the only thing preventing us from looking up is the people who keep saying "it won't happen". And this is quickly devolving into a debate on the subject, not these specific articles. It looks like there is more support for keeping than deleting. Can we resolve the vote and move forward? Chadlupkes 18:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So because I disagree with you, my argument is specious? Don't be ridiculous. I didn't ignore your arguments; I disagree with your entire premise that there is a "wide body" of work dealing with the colonization of Mercury. There's not even a wide body of work detailing plans to get there, much less to colonize it. A book and a couple of websites does not a viable theory make, and therefore I think it should be deleted. Personal attacks like that aren't going to make me change my mind and they aren't going to fool the bureaucrat who will make the final tally. Kafziel 18:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is, in fact, a wide body of research (serious, peer reviewed, engineering sand pace science) on how to get to the various planets, and why you would want (or not want) to go to specific ones. These articles don't generally go into huge depth in those sources, but they are definitely out there. The tradeoffs of trajectories, propulsion types and mission designs, landing site analysis, resource analysis, human factors of various missions, etc. The Moon and Mars are the best studied, followed by the Asteroid belt, but people have researched every possible place to go in the solar system (and outside it, for that matter) as an engineering problem for colonization.
You may not see that research if you don't hang out in those communities, but there are hundreds or low thousands of technical papers (peer reviewed, etc) published and probably ten conferences a year on the serious technical engineering and scientific issues associated with space development and colonization, looking across the world. It is a very serious deep technical field. Georgewilliamherbert 04:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any personal attack, I made a frank and informed evaluation of the argument. As I said, the references I was able to put into the Colonization of Mercury entry last night, which draw from popular and peer-reviewed literature by expert scientists, was the result of ten minutes of pulling out books I could reach without getting up from my computer. It's the very beginning. You have also shifted your argument now from denying the existence of a factual subject to denying that enough sources exist to support the entries. A very large body of work on these subjects does exist; discoveries of the breadth of this literature have astonished me more than once. Your lack of knowledge of these references does not render them non-existent. - Reaverdrop 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't shifted my argument. At no point in my original statement did I say that random speculation on the subject does not exist. I know it does. I said that the topic fails to meet the crystal ball criterion that it should be a near certainty. I stand by that. If you want to discuss the speculations presented about the possibility of colonization, then this should be moved to "Theories of interplanetary colonization" or some such thing. It has nothing to do with the references; I don't care if you have 100 of them. The actual colonization of Mercury has not happened (and, I'd say, will never happen) and therefore this is in the wrong place. Don't worry about it - there are enough supporters here to keep the article from being deleted without you trying to have my opinion disregarded. Kafziel 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between mere random speculation, and decades worth of rigorous scientific and engineering studies on a speculative subject. - Reaverdrop 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you call yourself a skeptic. Kafziel 18:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Karl Popper and Carl Sagan. Science needs two engines, skepticism and wonder. Without the wonder to ask daring questions and investigate the least unlikely answers, one is reduced to a navel-gazing philosopher. - Reaverdrop 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, we've got Sagan, a science fiction writer, and Popper, who basically said that everything is valid until you can prove otherwise. My vote remains "delete", and it won't mean much in the final tally anyway. Let's just leave it at that. Kafziel 19:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For your future reference, Sagan's single effort at science fiction weighed against his lengthy career as the chairman of the Cornell astronomy department and one of the most widely cited authorities in the scientific literature on planetary science hardly justifies labeling him a mere science fiction writer rather than a top scientist. - Reaverdrop 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My word choice was poor. My (rare) attempt at brevity won out over clarity. The mention of science fiction was only meant to illustrate the speculative nature of his overall philosophy. Two enemies (and victims) of skepticism are hardly the ones who should be allowed to redefine the term. Kafziel 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've replaced one astounding characterization with another; most people would have named Sagan as a champion of skepticism. - Reaverdrop 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure, he could be skeptical when he wanted to be. Anyone can do that. People who believe in the Rapture can pull off that very same feat when it comes to evolution, but I don't think I would consider them champions of skepticism. ;) Kafziel 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Rapture has not happened, and will likely never happen, and yet wikipedia justifiably has an article on the subject. These articles do not describe an event past, present, or future, but rather a possible program of action, and current programs of science and exploratory engineering. There exist hundreds of sources because these are ideas in serious consideration and investigation. siafu 18:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wrote an article speculating about the time when the Rapture would occur, that would be a crystal ball and a good candidate for deletion. But that's not what this article is about - it is about a doctrine taught in mainline Christian churches and believed by most conservative Protestants. Any good content from this article should be merged into the Mercury article itself. BigDT 18:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any timelines in the article, just information about the potential advantages and disadvantages to the concept. Chadlupkes 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in this article, or in the others, is there a prediction speculating about when colonization might occur. But, you're also absolutely right that this is not the Rapture (as mentioned in your edit summary), as we actually have some reason to suggest that this (i.e., colonization) might actually happen someday. siafu 18:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not lower ourselves to make comparisons with religious articles. The rapture (which, as a matter of fact, some believe has already happened) is a notable topic inasmuch as the Easter Bunny is a notable topic, whereas the colonization of Mercury is not. The speculation about colonizing other planets is, and I did suggest moving this to some more appropriate title.
Religious theories never rise above speculation; that's what makes them religious theories. If they came true, they'd be science. On the other hand, "speculative science" is a nice way of saying "science fiction". We should be holding our science articles to a higher standard than that. Kafziel 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the fact that this has not happened, and may never happen is irrelevant; whether you consider a valid analogy to a religious topic "lowering ourselves" is up to you. The article is not about making predictions; it's more comparable, for example, to an article about a proposed bridge that was planned, engineered, discussed, and possibly even partially financed, but never built. Such would be an equally encyclopedic topic, and similarly not making crystal ball predictions. siafu 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a more appropriate analogy would be the idea for a bridge that was discussed among a few architects and filed away for being completely impractical, without ever having professional plans drawn up or receiving any significant financing. A real-world analogy might be the myriad plans for developing a memorial for the World Trade Center. The hundreds of absurd ideas that didn't get past the discussion phase do not have their own articles here. They were impractical, they were not acted upon, so they would only be notable as part of a larger subject, or with a qualified title. Kafziel 19:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep All - and improve according to Wikipedia standards I agree that there is a need for these articles. If they must be spun off from another article then that is not in itself an argument that they should not exist - that is just a question of organisation. Planets and the moon and Titan are factual matters. Space exploration is factual. Space exploration of the solar system inevitably raises issues of the habitability of the solar system. These issues exist as a function of the relationship of human biology and terrestial life, generally, to hostile but reachable environments. These issues are real, not fictional. If the subject is denied then it is censorship of information necessary to the ongoing human exploration and settlement of new environments that took us out of the Rift Valley of Africa many hundreds of thousands of years ago to the point where we are now on the verge of colonising neighbouring worlds. Anyone who suggests that this is "speculation about the future" should not bother to post on the internet, since they are speculating that someone will read what they have posted. Some assumptions about the future are well founded and reasonable while others are not. Science assumes that what holds true today will hold true tomorrow. It is speculation about the future, not scientifically verifiable, since we cannot time-travel into the future to verify our assumptions, but scientists do it all the time. In this case we are using facts about planetary objects, physics, biology etc., and the speculation is that human nature, curiosity and necessity will urge us as a species to do what we have done in the past, that is, to explore and colonise our environment. All life does it - why should it be unreasonable speculation about the future to suggest that humans will continue to do so? Rather, to suggest that we might not is highly speculative and unsupported by any evidence that I am aware of! - Elizabeth Jane (registered with Wikipedia) 6:04 AM 9/05/2006 Adelaide (C.S.T.)

Right. Because the scientists who design the spacecraft that will bring colonists to Titan are going to consult Wikipedia for the latest info on the subject, and reorganizing these Wikipedia articles would doom any hope of future space exploration. That's just melodrama for its own sake. Kafziel 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're trashing Wikipedia? Wikipedia's the future, man. I think the Titan colonists will be referring to and continuing to update that very entry we are just starting. - Reaverdrop 00:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's trashing Wikipedia - it's an encyclopaedia, not a space travel manual. Given that No solid plans or studies have been made regarding manned missions to Titan, I fail to see how we can have an article about it. Note that I didn't list Space Colonization for deletion, just the over-specific, necessarily speculative and unencyclopaedic planet articles. Worldtraveller 13:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think Space Colonization is a candidate for deletion, then I think you may have misused the AfD process. It's not a mechanism for resolving disputes about whether articles should be split or merged. It's for removing content that has no place at all here. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. --agr 15:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. The information here could be merged if desired, but this page should still be deleted. There's no need to turn it into a redirect, because there's no such thing as the colonization of Mercury, so nobody is going to search for it. Reaverdrop has decided to turn this into a soapbox (and nearly dragged me in, which is why I struck my comments below), but Worldtraveller's use of AfD is entirely appropriate. Kafziel 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the policy on deletion of redirects: Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F.--21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Give me a few Billion in capital, and I'll put one out. Give anyone the capital necessary, and they'll find a way. Lacking that capital, it's not being looked at seriously by the government. That doesn't mean it won't happen. To follow the logic put forward by this deletion recommendation, anything like this would have to find a new home on the Net, and only come to Wikipedia when it has happened. How many people working on Wikipedia right now would move away because of this change of policy? Do we want them to leave? I don't. Chadlupkes 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I have to give you a rough estimate of how many would leave Wikipedia over this, I'd have to say... zero. But I could be a little off, so based on the comments here and the membership over at the Space Colonization project page, I'd be willing to go as high as two. Kafziel 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. I'm not "trashing" Wikipedia. I'm being realistic. Where was Wikipedia when Man circumnavigated the globe? Where was it when Man explored Antarctica? Where was it when Man went into space? Somehow, we still got the information we needed. Apollo 7 wasn't designed with Mozilla and CorelDraw. Before the world wide web, I'm sure lots of people thought their bulletin boards were the wave of the future. Back when modems screeched and every board was run out of some guy's basement. Where are they now? Don't kid yourself about the importance of our project, because that's when you start to find yourself defending absurd claims like the above.
Have you seen her statement that a ride at the fair is "probably symbolic of the hermetic teaching, found in the Major Arcana of the Tarot, and also in the meaning of the phoenix of Celtic mythology"?[3] If she can force herself to be that melodramatic about a carnival ride, I suppose it's no wonder she can vomit up such glowing support for this. Kafziel 12:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Never mind. Kafziel 13:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to end debate - Not sure how this works, but I would like the vote to be tallied and a decision made. Let's move forward. Chadlupkes 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the process works. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deleted. --InShaneee 01:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ganny

[edit]

A joke. Still jokes are not CSD. feydey 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 and redirect to Mary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mhairi

[edit]

Delete. Article about a variant of the name Mary. Inappropriate topic for encyclopedia and only "over 1000" bearers. Deprodded by anon without explanation - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and keep as redirect.Tyrenius 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 02:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of words for peace

[edit]

I never thought I'd have to utter this variant of WP:WINAD, but here goes: Wikipedia is not a thesaurus. The only list of this type I could possibly imagine voting to keep would be a list of words for hello, which I can't find anywhere here. (Random WP observation: we might not have a list of words for hello, but we do have a List of hello world programs.) TheProject 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 14:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wuice

[edit]

Joke entry. No citations. Wüs is an apparent attempt at a redirect. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 02:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Ursini

[edit]

Not notable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 02:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical London travel guide

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Any encyclopedic material which is added to this article should be added to the articles on the relevant museums etc instead. Alternatively the writer may be interested in contributing to Wikitravel. Bhoeble 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing

[edit]

Essay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is "really rather silly" a valid reason? Because it is. Carlo 02:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Effect

[edit]

Article seems to be A) original research/pure speculation (depending on one's point of view) and b) questionably encyclopedic. RobLinwood 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 02:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Mason (son of Belinda Carlisle)

[edit]

NN (not notable, vanity, see WP:BIO). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • When did it become neccesary to expand on non-notable? There is no claim to notability, thus the article fails the WP:BIO standards. There are so many vanity pages to be deleted, is it practical to give a detailed reason for every AfD nomination? Besides, the precident is well established that nn is an acceptable abbreviation for "non notable". I would have speedied the article but for the fact that that it is a celebrity's son. Otherwise, it definitely meets the criteria for deletion.--Bayyoc 18:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. JIP | Talk 06:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus Nihil

[edit]

original research, non notable. Is it wiki to list every Player guild ever created? If so, then I will reverse my nomination. I don't think it's encyclopedic. Bayyoc 02:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Not transwikied as it is unverifiable. The three links I found on google are mirrors of wikipedia.--Ezeu 15:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dabal ka Mitha

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a cookbook Bayyoc 02:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the rest of the recipies as transwiki candidates. I MIGHT transwiki them in a couple days if the orig author doesn't do it. (That's a lot of work, though)--Bayyoc 03:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deleted. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 03:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. George Tjionas

[edit]

Delete, looks like a hoax, a google search on "George Tjionas" returns 8 non-related results Prodego talk 02:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qabuli

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a cookbook. NOTE: User:Salmaakbar has posted several recipie articles today. Bayyoc 02:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a kg of rice? Hornplease


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Great power. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major power

[edit]

This article is Original Research. The users writing the page have been deciding according to their own debates what countries are and are not "major powers". Since "major power" is not a properly defined political science term (it's really only used colloquially), it's impossible to establish a clear criterion for inclusion or exclusion from this article. There is no criterion for what qualities and in what quantity are necessary to deem a country a "major power". This article ought to be deleted and set as a redirect to Great power. —thames 02:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of things. Firstly, it was nice of you to give no warning or notice to the editors that have worked on this article before nominating it. Secondly, is Great power the only term that can be used for a power that is not a Superpower yet is stronger than a Middle power or Regional power. If there is any other term that defines such powers then a simple move will do I think. The majority of the content should stay, in one location or the other. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: part of the idea, I think, was to reach a consensus on the need to jettison (delete) most of the content that's there (OR). Have you seen that article's talk page? Suggesting a merge would only lead to endless clamour and bickering from people wishing, against all good sense, to keep what's there. Albrecht 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An Afd proposal is not the way to force changes to an article. If you object to the contents then as a matter of courtesy you ought to bring it up with editors on the article talk page (as a matter of fact, I might be wrong but don't believe that you have made any particular contribution to the article - 1 minor edit, that seems to be all). As for the article title, 'Major power', I will take your word for it that this does not have a basis in academic political science. If this is the case then it would have been nice for you and Thames to bring this up on the talk page; I don't think that you would have found any disagreement with moving/editing this article if you had calmly and reasonably explained the situation - simply slapping OR tags on the page isn't really a meaningful contribution towards its improvement.
Xdamr, you, I think, are missing the point. We have before us a purely OR article; discussing "changes" or plastering its content on another page won't solve anything. It simply needs to go. Also, your talk of "forcing changes," I find, is disingenuous—"Major power" is not a scientific term and so cannot be "defined" in a manner that would not run contrary to Wikipedia principles. I think this AfD nomination is legitimate and its goal is simple and very clear: delete the current OR article and replace it with a redirect to Great Power, where the general concepts, provided they are encyclopaedic and verifiable, can be developed. I am glad you noticed that I never substantially contributed to what I have openly identified as OR; why would I add to the problem? I see no contradiction. In brief: do you dispute that the article is original research? If not, let's get this behind us and turn our discussions to something called Political science. Albrecht 21:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, for those with the relevant academic background, is there or is there not a term for 2nd tier powers, powers such as the UK, France, and Russia?
Xdamr 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're going about this backwards (that's how this mess was started in the first place). One does not create ad hoc polisci terms to fit arbitrary groups of states; one classifies countries according to existing categories and principles. Albrecht 21:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I can't vote in this matter, but I would like to defend the claimed OR in the article. GB, France, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, and India are widely talked about as Major Powers in the world. Other countries also deserve mention such as Italy, but because they are not "documented" as a major power are not included. Whats ironic about this is that Major Power is the older article of the two. Anyway, if this is merged, all content should be merged. Anyway, the content currently presented, is only there after a LOT of discussion. Slowly but surely, these articles are becoming NPOV, with the current group of dedicated editors, namely Xdamr, Guinnog and Noble Eagle but several others as well. 12.220.94.199 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, being "widely talked about" doesn't mark them down as legitimate. If these countries were expressly classified as "Major Powers" in social science texts and peer reviewed journals, you'd have grounds for an article. They aren't, and you don't. Like it or not, Xdamr, Guinnog and Noble Eagle, whatever their other qualities, are not the arbiters of polisci taxonomy, and their discussion, however much of it there was, is no justification for an encyclopaedia article. Albrecht 02:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A point I have made several times on the talk pages of these articles (Superpower etc, which this one derives a lot of its OR from).Guinnog 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term major power perhaps. But major power is simply a term describing the usage in the media. Take this link that took me five seconds to look up for example. [4] While the article is purely speculative, it does make the important point of the major powers in the world. It lists off China and the U.S.(obviously) as the main powers, with the spoilers being India and Russia and the signficant allies being Europe for the U.S.(speculative) and Japan for China(highly speculative). Nonetheless despite the large amounts of speculation, it does show who are the signficant powers in the modern world. 12.220.94.199 02:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that there is scope for an article on major power/great power etc. Whether they should all be redirects to one article, or could even deserve their own, I'm not sure. However, this current version appears to be almost entirely an invention of someone's mind. Delete it, redirect, and then hopefully in a few months it can be recreated with decent conetent. --Robdurbar 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know the article is largely unsourced. We were going to pursue that in time and already cut down on much OR in the UK and Russia sections. But firstly and most importantly, rather than going on about your 'no political term' talk can you just tell me what political science students would call powers such as the UK, Russia, China, India etc. that are NOT Superpowers. Just tell me that so that we can move the information to the related page. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want to keep the article then vote keep; as it stand its being redirected but there's nothing to stop you changing that by voting against it. This isn't really a place to discuss the article's content; hell, you have three or four days - go, find sources, improve it, and people might even alter their votes. --Robdurbar 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not mince words: Since when is Wikipedia a repository of terms that are in "moderately common colloquial use?" Which guideline sanctions; whose authority supports, the creation of Wikipedia articles that are venues for personal opinions developed through the editors' own research? Our mandate here is not, I would think, to pick up scraps of what the media blurt out and to try to cobble articles out of them. Another expression used fairly commonly in the media, for instance, is "major player," i.e. "the Republic of Foo is now a major player in Southeast Fooian affairs." Should I then go ahead and create Major player (international relations) and define it arbitrarily? Albrecht 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately common colliqual use within the political science / geopolitics journals. I don't care what comes up in popular press reports; this is in use within the professional journals and publications of the political science / geopolitics research and policy communities. Georgewilliamherbert 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further that: Geopolitics/Political science book title, College course title, Ppaer by geopolitics researcher at policy center, paper by former US secretary of state. These primary sources are from the first page of googling the term, not even starting back through my library at home of books or back issues of Foreign Affairs or other journals.
The claim that this isn't in sufficiently common use to document in wikipedia is ill-informed. This is Clearly NOT WP:OR and the AfD premise is faulty. Please DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Georgewilliamherbert 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
George, I've done enough homework to know that the Major power article is OR in all its bearings, that this AfD premise is sound, and that your own "sources" (such as they are) confirm this. Your third link, in particular, bears out the problem with its flippant talk of "major Eastern actor," "major and active players," "major geostrategic player," etc. These are all off-handed, rhetorical expressions with no strictly defined application in the field of international relations. Even its use of "major power" is shaky and suggests a morphous definition:
  • "Japan is clearly a major power in world affairs..."
  • "Great Britain, to be sure, still remains important to America. It continues to wield some degree of global influence through the Commonwealth, but it is neither a restless major power..."
Nowhere have you illustrated a common usage subject to verifiable criteria. If the term "major power" were a staple in the political science discipline, as you seem to suggest, there would be no need to clarify its meaning with a phrase like "in world affairs." And all this, of course, does not even address the plain and obvious OR nature of the article's content. Albrecht 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat beyond me how you can state that there's no common usage subject to verifyable criteria. I just pulled up a bunch of sources with 30 sec on Google, and from having studied the field for a decade on and off I can tell you that any semi-competent library search in a Poli Sci / Geopolitics section will find loads more. The word is
  1. in common use in the field
  2. clearly enough defined that people in the field don't argue about it all the time
The specific country entries are highly problematic; they don't say anything I know to be false about the state of geopolitical analysis / publication, but it's very opinionated and many of them approach or pass OR on content summarization. A shorter list of nations which are labeled Major power in the literature would be far superior, without the problematic longer expansion. Georgewilliamherbert 19:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just pulled up a bunch of sources that use the term frivolously and arbitrarily along with a handful of others ("major player," etc.) that ought not to have articles. Good effort, but not good enough. ("common usage," by the way, means that the sense (meaning) of the word shouldn't vary substantially. It does.) And if you think the term is "clearly enough defined that people don't argue about it all the time," then you ought to conduct that semi-competent library search you've been talking about and find a definition. The onus is on you. (Oh, and I recommend you take a look at the article's talk page, for instance the section titled "ITALY, WHY YOU DON'T YOU EVEN MENTION ITALY?" Not exactly encouraging.)
Then feel free to try and get reputable cites for the criteria the article is based on, and the content written around them. The main reason it fails is its all-OR nature. Change that and I might change my vote. Guinnog 18:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've put those references into the article. The basic definition there, and its usage re: the validity of the term, should be established sufficiently by now.
The question of whether the individual nations listed, and the format or detail of their listings, are appropriate is a completely different question. Shrinking those to a much more compact list, and clarifying that there is no universally accepted list but that these nations have been labeled as such (and preferably, working to reference each nation's labeling) are good things. But that's article improvement work, not deletion justification. I will poke around and work on that, but I can't do it all today. It does need to happen over time, though. Georgewilliamherbert 18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good effort. The trouble is, as it stands, beyond the dicdef, the entire article consists of "the individual nations listed, and the format or detail of their listings". I don't think anybody doubts the possibility of a viable article with this title in the future, though it is harder to justify when there an adequate article exists on Great Powers, a term with a much better academic pedigree which seems to include this article's subject. Guinnog 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great Powers are distinct from Major powers; conflating the two is a mistake.
In terms of fixing this article; articles which need major repair are specifically listed as a reason not to AfD in the AfD criteria. This needs to get tagged with cleanup and related tags (and fixed...), not deleted. The "nuke it and recreate it later more appropriately" approach is against stated WP policy, though it's something people commonly want to do. Georgewilliamherbert 18:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between "Great Power" and "Major Power" is the former is well-defined and solidly entrenched behind history while the latter remains redundant and unsubstantiated (look at the list of Great Powers and spot those without a "downfall" date—they correspond exactly to your ad hoc list of "Major" powers!). As "Great Power" falls out of fashion, other terms like "major power" (or "major geostrategic player," as per your links above) are popping up to express basically the same concept. Or am I missing some Earth-shattering difference between states "that have substantial influence on other states" and those "whose opinions must be taken into account by other nations before effecting initiatives"?
Uh... the only difference between "Great Power" and "Major Power" is that a Great Power status is a historical recognition and that a Major Power is a current status designation. A country was a Great Power, or is arguably a Major Power. This is not just a minor semantics point... Georgewilliamherbert 19:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Nuke it and recreate it later more appropriately" is a gross misrepresentation of the situation when we're talking about an unencyclopaedic term defined only by a smattering of OR: There's nothing to nuke, and very little to recreate that can't be added to Great Power or Power in international relations. Moreover, your calling into question the politics of this AfD does not constitute a defence for the article. Defending the article would involve backing up the substance, structure, and assumptions of its content with the proper sources, and so far, you simply haven't done this. Albrecht 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is at the very least a major overlap between the two terms, and if you deleted the OR bits, there wouldn't be anything left. Sorry, but FWIW I am not convinced. I speak as someone who has tried hard to improve the current article over the past months. Guinnog 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If criticising all the efforts to improve the articles is improvement then pardon my ignorance. See Talk:Superpower to see what I'm talking about. Firstly, we've got the criteria sourced by a reputable organization, what more do you want? Secondly, your work on this article has comprised of very few edits. I didn't want to make this personal, but as a guy who's accepted as a frequent editor of the Power in international relations articles, you've got on my nerve with your criticism and lack of helping the action. Anyway, no hard feelings. It seems we've got a Political Science dispute here, which should have been sorted on the talk page before nominating for deletion. I'm voting keep until you PS students can come to a conclusion. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show me criteria sourced by reputable organizations and I'll change my vote to "keep" in a heartbeat. So far, the citations in the opening paragraph lead to a laughable assortment of blogs, news stories, dead links, and a book cover. Sorry, no game. Also, (and I hope I don't "get on your nerves" by saying this), my conviction is that a "delete" vote on this gangrenous wreck of an article is the single best "helping action" one can offer here. Albrecht 15:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An organization by the name of Global CPR was used and is used to source the criteria. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would question though whether this one reference (interesting though it is) is notable enough to base an entire article on.

I would note too that their criteria (which are unreferenced) are subtly different from the ones in the article, and that the conclusions they draw are slightly different from those in the article. There remains the nagging doubt in my mind too about whether this article may be based on an earlier version of this Wiki article, leading to a circular situation! Best case scenario, we establish that this article is based on (plagiarised from?) the OR of one website, moderated and modified by the original research of several Wiki editors.

While it is an interesting debate, whether such-and-such a power is a "Major Power" or an "Emerging Superpower" etc, I don't think it belongs on an encyclopedia as it is too arbitrary. Really, who are we to decide whether Russia (say) is a Major Power?

If this article is allowed to stay on Wiki in anything like its present form, we could have next an article on Possible Superpowers of the 22nd century, or one on Countries which will probably never amount to much, or one on Countries which could have been Superpower contenders but blew it. Synthesise some OR criteria and make a list of countries, then let the arguments begin. Entertaining though this might be (up to a point), it doesn't seem apppropriate for an encyclopedia.

I appreciate the work you have put in to try and improve this article, and understand how galling it must be to see the work seemingly deprecated; be assured this is nothing personal (as I mentioned in your talk page), but just a recognition that there is no way to save this from being OR. Guinnog 12:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Keep.
India's an FA, the guys involved with that don't want the content in the Emerging Superpowers India article. :) Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you decid not to keep the page, I think you shouldn't delete it, simply merge all its conyents plus the expanded ones with the page Great Power and complement the two pages, but I think this is a wrong idea. ACamposPinho 1:40 10 May 2006

From my reading of the Afd proposal there are two main points of contention: firstly, the concept of 'Major Power' is OR and secondly the listing of nations within the article is OR. To my mind only the first is a valid AfD criticism; debates over OR in the article content are properly dealt with on the article talk page - the fact that an article is poorly written is not a reason for its deletion, it is a reason to improve it. As Georgewilliamherbert says above, 'the "nuke it and recreate it later more appropriately" approach is against standard WP policy'.
Either you have not thoroughly read the discussion or you are deliberately obstructing the issues involved. No one wants to delete the article because it's "poorly written." What we have here is an indefinable term built on foundations of bickering and sloppy OR. The grounds for deletion, as previously stated, are that the term is redundant, OR, and, not being a polisci term, "cannot be 'defined' in a manner that would not run contrary to Wikipedia principles."
The question of whether 'Major power' is a term of political science is one for political scientists to debate. Personally, I accept in good faith Albrecht's assertion that it is not. However I do not consider that this alone makes the article OR. We see above, and now in the article, that 'Major power' is a term in colloquial usage amongst those involved in the area; it can no longer be seriously asserted that this is 'OR/interesting intellectual speculation' (per Martinp above). Whether it is a strict term of political science is not the point; it has been shown to be a term of art, this makes it worthy of remaining.
If colloquial usage warrants an article then I expect your full support when I create Major player (international relations), Geostrategic player, and Restless Power.
The term is now sourced. The content of the article may remain open to debate, but the grounds for a legitimate Afd have surely now gone. Informed discussion as to content should now take place on the talk page.
The term, as I said above, is sourced to a laughable assortment of blogs, news stories, dead links, and a book cover. Sorry, no game. The AfD, if anything, is more valid now than when it began since we now know that none of the article's main contributors have shown any serious interest in finding a legitimate basis for the term or demonstrating that it can stand on other foundations than OR (the poor job with sources confirms this). Why not channel our energies toward something productive?
I question whether the votes above can now legitimately stand; now that the term is sourced it is no longer OR. Those who voted above based their conclusions on a superceded version of the article. Either way it would have been much better to have thrashed this out on the talk page before bringing it to Afd. Albrecht said '[I] have never substantially contributed to [an article] I have openly identified as OR'. No-one expects you to contribute to such an article but I would ask whether this precluded you from raising your concerns on the talk page?
Xdamr 13:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice attempt to dismiss the process out of hand. And if you want to thrash things out on the talk page go right ahead; I invite you to debate ACamposPinho's Italian case and his assertion that "there are many italian books regarding this theme. One major writer of italian geopolitics is Mr. Lelio Lagorio, a military that was defence minister in the early 80's." Good luck. Albrecht 16:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not necessary luck, only money tobuy the books, go at www.internetbookshop.it(ibs.it) and search for Lelio Lagorio, there you can buy his books.There are many others from other sources,including anglo-saxon schoolars and researchers of these theme. ACamposPinho 3:48, 12 May 2006
That's just quoting an example of a one-off. It doesn't happen very often that someone comes and says that they want different nations in the Major power article. In case you haven't noticed, the same nations have been on the article since it's creation. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of you saying that it doesn't happens very often,is alreadymentioning thatit happens.

I talked to people in wikipedia and they say that I could edit the page, according to the facts that I showed. Neverthless, I talked in the discussion page,because I want things to be done fairly. I'mnotasking to includ my country or other minor powers. Its Italy.I already showed more facts than all thefacts that areon that page for all the countries, and I showed only for one, because I know what I'm talking about. Even if GDP, military, industry know-how and self-knowledge to construct their own things besides geopolits aren't enough, look at Italy cultural and historical impirtance since Roman epoch untill nowadays. 50% of the worldpatrimony is there. I can provide facts and facts, people doesn't wan't to see them because they prefer a forgotten and more fragile Italy.But the reality is very different. I reed above someone saying that Japan is Major Power, while UK is also a Major Power, usefull to USA but a restless power. Its wrong. Besides UK GDP, financial markets strenghtit has the second most active personel on "peacekeeping" actions in the world, its a major EU member, member of Nato with nuclear power, has a UN Permanent Seat on Security Council besides being the chief country of the British Commonwealth. As you said,one must take into account the powerof the region itself and the power that the coutry has in the region to determinate its power in the world stage. Japan is a Major economical power, but can't influence all Asian continent byitself, altough itsan importantcountry in world stage, its more a regional power of East Asia, not even Asia at allits dimension. Japan cannot deploy its armed forces for war purposes, only in peacekeeping or if it where attacked.In that it's more a puppet of USA than UK. The fact the page has the same nations since the begging is a very poor argument.Everything evolves and develops. The Wikipedia project is always in development, look at the newarticles, pages, expanded articles it has compared with the beggining of that project. The english page is evolving every day. The fact that you don't want the page to be developed is that it was created according to your views or its you that have some prejudices against the thruth. Since you have a personal aproach to these geopolitics,you say that are the others that have this sentiment. Nobody its ownerof the thruth, people could only know more of this or moreof that and someone knows more of this and the other knows more of that. You are not owner of the thruth and not even of Wikipedia, you should listen, or reed what someone knows better than you. I've been studying Italian Geopolitics,culture, politics, military,...,for a very long time. What I want is that the Major Power page shows more fairness and the Great Power pages shows historical accuracy, things I don't see on them now. ACamposPinho 2:18, 13 May 2006

OK, you don't need to get touchy about it. And this isn't the place to discuss it anyway. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Emerging Superpowers and Major powers aren't related enough to be dicussed in the one AfD. Secondly, the Emerging Superpowers articles already survived AfD. Thirdly, fragments aren't sourced, everything (at least in India and China ones) is sourced, the India one uses inotes because it was way to messy with 130-odd sources lying everywhere. Fourthly, there are also a number of links used that directly link India's, China's, EU's power with a rise to Superpower status so that isn't OR. Fifthly, the Russia one and a couple of other made by patriotic editors need to be speedily removed. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You would be foolish to begin this again. It'll only lead to an edit war. You know full well that these articles need to stay for the good of Wikipedia's political section. I will not tolerate this tiny majority inviting people who know little of the subject matter to swing deletion votes. The majority of people who worked on these articles want the articles to stay. Never mind if you manage to whip up enough support from faceless editors in an AfD, you will be defeated by the majority. You were warned. Wikipedians please note the contributions of 200.171.168.91 and their counterpart 201.1.154.57 - nothing other than these articles for deletion. Yet they seem strangely knowlegeable of the Wikipedian workings. Sockpuppets if I ever saw one.Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. All random faceless editors who've had their say on this, please note all the media sources appearing on this article. Whoops. As these articles are all OR by us, someone really out to ring the media up and tell them to stop lying! Shocking, eh? Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. Excellent article, very valid topic. Maybe a bit long, but should NOT be deleted. Theonlyedge 23:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nolte Burke

[edit]

This article was de-prodded a week ago; the prod read "No indication of meeting WP:BIO." I quite agree. TheProject 03:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Men in Black 3

[edit]

Delete - Crystal Ball syndrome. Film is only rumor and fan conjecture at the moment. Provided link for "source" is nearly three years old. TheRealFennShysa 03:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal newbie

[edit]

Non-encyclopedic topic; description is worthless, nothing more than a vanity chat room rant.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. JIP | Talk 06:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Paddock

[edit]

Delete- vanity, non-notable. This is kid's work, as noted by this revision [5] where Chris Paddock was listed as being born in 1990. Fabricationary 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Borderline neologism.  RasputinAXP  c 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pod slurping

[edit]

Contested ((prod)) brought here for consensus. History shows article was originally proposed for deletion on 21 Feb, tag was subsequently removed, and article was erroneously proposed for deletion again on 21 April. RobertG ♬ talk 08:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 and wikify. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Road Ahead; America's Creeping Revolution

[edit]

This article was speedied, but is not a speedy candidate; restoring for a proper AfD. Seems like something that can be improved, NPOV'd and kept, if notability can be shown based on influence, citations to the work, sales volume, etc. BD2412 T 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 14:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krewmembers

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the Closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. This is a place to ascertain the consensus of the Wikipedia community. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note:this user appears to have been created purely to vote in this AFD (the above entry is their only ever edit), and so is probably the article creator. mgekelly 05:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
to closing admin: this is this users first and second edit
  • Comment - this is GHGoddess's only edit--WilliamThweatt 18:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does this mean that my comments are untrue? This is simply the first thread I felt deserved my time. Thank you,GHGoddess 12:34, 8 May 2006
  • Comment' - Yes it is just one article in a million, which makes me wonder whats with the attack group, non-notable web forum, spam tags? Its no wonder wikipedia still gets blasted, you guys cant even do research before typing down your opinions. And why put up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics at all if a webcomic isnt allowed an entry? -HailCeasar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.10.184.66 (talk • contribs)


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

--WilliamThweatt 04:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Sin Yuk-Do

[edit]

Reason Bacmac 03:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC) not notable group A Google search for Jung Sin Yuk Do martial arts comes up with nothing of great note see: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=jung+sin+yuk+do&btnG=Google+Search&meta= . Other than the Wikipedia related pages the search only shows two links which point to one website in north queensland. The article contains edits that looks like a case of somebody writing an article about themselves and editing out criticism and calling it vandalism. The discussion pages contain entries by Aaron Barnes who says he used the JSYD school pc to work on the article, there is an edit to the entry by Rod Cook(?) confirming. WP:POV Constant revert editing points to possible Ownership of articles with a further possibility of WP:VANITY (search on founder in wiki brought up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rod_Cook Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles) I have spent time and gone through the article its edits and discussion pages and I suspect Sock puppetry. The use of legal threats on the discussion page (Legal threats) (Libel), personal attacks and placement of personal details (eg. names, email etc. No personal attacks) appear to be used to stifle or hinder discussion or changes being made to the article. There is a lot of editing to wade through in the article and discussion pages so if any Admin have specific questions I am happy to point them in the direction in an effort to cut down time spent locating it. Bacmac 03:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Counterparts

[edit]

Vanity article. No external references, no significant content updates in past two months, subjects of article are not notable/meriting encyclopedia inclusion Marysunshine 04:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, unverifiable bio.  RasputinAXP  c 20:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhu Sundar Selveraj

[edit]

Claim of notability is, er, a miracle. I think this violates our verifiability policy. Chick Bowen 04:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 `'mikka (t) 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic group names used as insults

[edit]

Where do I start? Firstly, I think as it stands, this is borderline nonsense. It's not true, and not even verifiable. If someone calls a Bulgarian a "bugger" one time, does it go on this list? It's unmanageable too, not to mention POV. The existence of List of ethnic slurs ought to be enough to satisfy anyone mgekelly 04:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This explains what the criteria for inclusion on this list are better than the page itself does. But most of these words surely are not generic insults. I mean, "Aussie"? Are people really running around calling people "Aussies" for stealing their bacon? mgekelly 05:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once public awareness that Australians are habitual bacon nabbers reaches a critical threshold, yes, then people might start calling actual or suspected bacon thieves "Aussies", and not as a compliment but by way of insult, something which need not involve ambulatory motion. We haven't quite reached that point yet. But don't say I didn't warn you — you know who you are. --LambiamTalk 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? It doesn't look restricted to Australia to me! Australia has only been mentioned so much in this discussion because someone added "aussie" to the list. JPD (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you are right, my mistake. Markb 17:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read any of the above beyond the nomination? Did you actually look at the article? --LambiamTalk 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. --Ezeu 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(and yes I read the article... "The entries on this list are not "ethnic slurs", which have a separate list..." is pure semantics.)--Isotope23 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly lost here. Isn't semantics supposed to be about the meaning of utterances? So saying it is "pure semantics" is saying that it concerns the meaning of what we are saying, rather than the typography. Is there something wrong with that? Further, do you seriously want to maintain that calling someone who, say, added lots of four-letter words to your user page a "vandal" is an ethnic slur? I say that you are really stretching the meaning of "ethnic slur" beyond reason. But maybe you don't care what words mean, because that is pure semantics. --LambiamTalk 18:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying that that there is no reasonable distinction in my opinion between "ethnic group names used as insults" and "ethnic slurs" despite the editorial claims on the List of ethnic group names used as insults. ; "ethnic group names used as insults" would fall under the canopy of "ethnic slurs". Saying that they are 2 entirely different things is, in my opinion, a semantic division. I don't see any logical reason being advanced why "ethnic group names used as insults" would not fall under a reasonable definition of "ethnic slurs"... and yes I would consider "vandal" to apply as it is ethnically derived though it has no current ethnic stigma attached to it. On a side note... I predict a keep for this on at least a "no consensus" so interpretation of the terms is kind of a moot point.--Isotope23 19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you agree that to say that "asphalt" and "butter" are different things also constitutes a semantic division, there is at least one thing on which we agree. I advise you, though, not to put asphalt on your slice of bread. --LambiamTalk 21:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is an entirely different example... it's "apples" and "oranges"... not a simple semantic division. Besides... I take my toast dry.--Isotope23 12:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 see the article next in hell - delete. Mailer Diablo 14:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See You Next Tuesday (band)

[edit]

WP:VAIN. No sources (apart from fan sites), no return edits, original research, and no proof of band's notability/merit for encyclopedia inclusion. Marysunshine 04:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Relisted as someone decided to recreate the page after it was agreed to delete. Wasn't sure where to post this, let me know if there is another page to refer recreations to. Thanks. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep.  RasputinAXP  c 20:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipcrime

[edit]

This is a vanity page for someone who doesn't have a enough notoriety, also is an advertisement for Usenet flooding software. 167.88.201.100 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Withdrawn. --Rory096 14:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matru Sewa Sangh

[edit]

Apparently non notable non profit organization. 259 Google hits, No Alexa ranking for their site. Rory096 05:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didnt intend to mean it that way. You'll find my back trail full of attempted puns|broken pottery by this bull in the Wikipedia China shop (there I go again). Just a (sick) attempt at humour. Strong keep because, in India, we have very few social service organisations as per density of our populace. An organisation such as Matru Seva Sangh reflects the Indian nationalist effort of the early twenties at following Gandhian ideals in the service of mankind. I think I'll send crzr an apology barnstar so that I'll have at least twenty gaffes more in interacting with him to my credit and I can rest in peace. BTW, I dont normally get involved outside butterflies unless I plan to get actively involved in the article.Hence strong keep since I plan to work on this for a couple of months.AshLin 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil in the Night

[edit]

Non notable release of non notable band which article about was recently deleted from Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merciless Death). Visor 05:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Hobo

[edit]

A student comic strip that ran for two years in the school newspaper of Murray State University. --Hetar 05:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Italian Americans to here. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian-American Neighborhoods

[edit]

Redundant. This information is already on Italian Americans in a more comprehensive listing. Passdoubt | Talk 06:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Wikipedia even consider deleting this page? No list like this can be found anywhere else on the the web, and it is far to useful and interesting to delete! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgattino (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was speedily userfied as non-notable club. Just zis Guy you know? 11:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camberwell High Liberal Club

[edit]

Appears to be created by the founder of this club, hence vanity and self-promotion. Club has been around for two years and it is a student political group at a high school who propound their ideology I guess. Not notable. It is a;lso full of commentary on the politics of the high school which is completely unverifiable gossip.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 copyvio. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sosa gliding club

[edit]

Tagged for speedy as nn-club, but notability clearly asserted; I can't offhand think of the applicable guidelines and can't make up my mind whether this claim to notability is encyclopaedic or not. A gliding club of 150 members - is that big for a gliding club? If it was, would it make it important? Can't decide. Just zis Guy you know? 11:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schweinefleischdummkopf

[edit]

I got no Google hits for this, so I cannot verify it. The creator has repeatedly changed the date on the prod notice instead of removing it, so, I'll bring it here. Grandmasterka 07:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crothers-Memorial

[edit]

A university dorm, which is not notable, per countless AfD discussions. Prod removed. Delete. Grandmasterka 07:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. It's pretty clear to me that the article itself focused on nothing but the fact that he made racial slurs in class outlines he posted on a website. I'm not prejudiced against recreation of a more encyclopediac version of the articlem, or creation of an article regarding the "controversy," but it all seems pretty weak to me.  RasputinAXP  c 20:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Alejandro Camara

[edit]

The notability of the person in this article is suspect. As of the most current edit, this article does not fit Wikipedia notability criteria (see Wikipedia:Notability (people)).

There are only three unique points in the article:

Many people coach high school debate, some graduate early, and others let the word nigger slip out on accident. More than half of the article has to do with how Camara pissed people off. Not only is this article uncited, but one of its important external links are "humorous video at debate practice."

Crzrussian suggested that Camara's status as a former John M. Olin fellow in law and economics at Harvard is grounds for notability as a fellow is basically a junior professor; however, this is a misunderstanding. As evidenced by Wikipedia's article on the John_M._Olin_Foundation, the foundation gives a grant to fellows at universities, including Harvard. Now that the confusion regarding the "John M. Olin" moniker is out of the way, let us examine what a fellow really is.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition [9], a fellow at a university would be a graduate student appointed to a position granting financial aid and providing for further study. This means that a fellow can hardly be equated to a college professor of any sort- they are just not the same thing.

Furthermore, Jahiegel has argued that the publicity surrounding the racial conflict at Harvard and Yale would be grounds for notability and would merit an evolution of the article into that incident. However, I contend that publicity is not enough to substantiate importance of subject based on two premises:

Camara himself is not notable enough, which logically means that the publicity surrounding him is not notable either. Consequently, this article should be deleted. Big.P (talk • contribs) 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • You suggest that Camara's status as a former John M. Olin fellow in law and economics at Harvard is grounds for notability as a fellow is basically a junior professor; however, this is a misunderstanding. As evidenced by Wikipedia's article on the John_M._Olin_Foundation, the foundation gives a grant to fellows at universities, including Harvard. Now that the confusion regarding the "John M. Olin" moniker is out of the way, let us examine what a fellow really is.
  • According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition [10], a fellow at a university would be a graduate student appointed to a position granting financial aid and providing for further study. This means that a fellow can hardly be equated to a college professor of any sort- they are just not the same thing. -- Big.P (talk • contribs) 05:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete Wikipedia isn't some news organization- the controversy isn't that notable. Lots of people are smart, but it is their accomplishments that define them. I see none mentioned in the article, so let's vamoose with it. -- 71.132.154.106 23:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet arbitration will decide whether or not this vote is legitimate, not CrazyRussian, who isn't even so much an administrator. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 23:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Number of edits from an ambiguous IP does not indicate experience on Wikipedia. Maybe the user forgot to sign in, or their IP changed as a result of ISP, like mine does. Then again, you wouldn't understand. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 03:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:71.132.154.106 where anon admits to being Big.P, the nominator. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened a sockpuppetry case against User:Big.p based on this AfD.
NOTE. I have moved the unrelated conversation over to User_talk:Big.P#Conversation from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi Alejandro Camara moved here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HI. Sorry about the sockpuppetry case or whatever, crazyrussian you can close it, i have no effin clue how to use this talk page but i wanted to voice my opinion and i screwed up the edits while commenting -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.237.109 (talk • contribs)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 08:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are concerned with my behavior, please leave anything regarding this outside of the AfD nomination and refer to my talk page instead. Thanks. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 06:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'..during the first eleven years of the Program, thirty-two John M. Olin Student Research Fellowships have been awarded to advanced graduate students for the general support of their training in law and economics.In addition, 104 Student Research Fellowships have been awarded to students to support specific research projects during the summer.' Also, we dont have articles on everyone who published a comment in the Yale Law Review. (If we did, I would have had a lot of fun writing some of them.) Fails WP:Proftest completely. Also, Prodigy-Schomidigy.
However: the controversy was certainly notable. At the time, there was a long article in the New Yorker that discussed both this and the Ward Churchill affair, treating them as if they were of equal importance. It has also been brought up time and again in the past year when people were discussing Larry Summers and his comments on women in the sciences. Ideally, I would support moving this to a page specifically dealing with the controversy.' Hornplease 08:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the reasoning for your vote, would you support a deletion of this article and the creation of a new one that centers around the controversy? -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 05:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Hornplease 12:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelique Lihou

[edit]

Less than 5 Google hits, fails WP:BIO Optimale Gu 08:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzen Johnson

[edit]

There can never be a perfect article about Suzen Johnson. The only reason she is listed is because she's slept with Frank Gifford and as a consequence appeard on the front of Playboy. The relevant information, of which there is little, is mainly there at Frank Gifford. Delete. The Land 09:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please look at it again, folks. I expanded, while "being nicer to Mrs. Johnson" (mainly being briefer on the unfavorable parts) and it didn't get reverted again, so it looks like most of this is going to stay. Lots of references. AnonEMouse 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I disagree. Yes, a list of playboy covers is encyclopedic. An article on every playboy cover model isn't when they will mainly be populated with their current area of residence, their dog's name, and their profession. Suzen Johnson might be notable but I don't think that can e the reason for it. The Land 07:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billericay School

[edit]

There is no meaningful content in this article. A speedy tag was removed with the statement that speedying of schools is not valid - I could find no such staement on WP:CSD -- SGBailey 09:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page!!!!!!!!1 why not my friends made it and it is very well written and they worked hard on it! leave it alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.108.39 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Trotskyists

[edit]

Redundant per Category:Trotskyists. A list of names in alphabetical order (which is what the category does), adding nothing to the encyclopaedia except maintenance overhead. My usual problem with lists applies: adding people to the list may not be noticed by editors of the person's article, so is vulnerable to unsourced or POV additions or deletions. In short: this list does precisely the job categories were designed for, only worse. Just zis Guy you know? 10:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, it would be the first featured list to be deleted. Can't you see that a list allows us to include, in this case, the date of birth, the nationality, the country, etc...? Afonso Silva 09:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of municipalities of Portugal isn't really comparable, IMO - not least because it's a finite list and would be useful regardless of whether there were separate articles for the municipalities themselves. A list of people such as List of Trotskyists though depends on the people on the list being notable themselves, and therefore it would be reasonable to expect them to have their own articles which can be categorised and provide sources for their political affiliation. —Whouk (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 05:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. Roy Medley

[edit]

Tagged nn-bio, buit notability of a kind is asserted. Article is written informally. Subject is general secretary of a small denomination, American Baptist Churches USA. I'm afraid that long experience has made me sceptical about any American Baptist subject, there has been too much Gastroturfing in the past. Just zis Guy you know? 10:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 article to drop dead - delete. Mailer Diablo 14:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring Me the Horizon, Oli Sykes, Drop dead clothing

[edit]

Deleted once by WP:PROD, reposted. I'd happily speedy it, since they have released precisely one EP but it's evidently contested, so I guess it gets its run on AfD. Also for your consideration, Oli Sykes, the lead singer, and Drop dead clothing, his clothing label. Any resemblance to vanispamcruftisement is purely unintentional. Just zis Guy you know? 11:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Bring Me The Horizon is a repost from a different capitalisation, deleted by AfD in December. No change in status since then (one EP and no albums released) so speedied and earth salted, leaving Oli Sykes and his clothing label. Just zis Guy you know? 14:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This "salt the Earth" philosophy, is one reason why so many people find it necessary to keep just about anything that has a hope of turning into something good. While some would like to delete certain articles in poor condidtion, and have a new/better version made later, they can rest assured, that, if deleted, the page will be protected for all of time (effectively). Isn't this suppose to be a wiki? (e.g. where anybody can edit any page, right now)? Also, the fact it was re-made under a different title, pretty much shows how useless such protection is *except* against those wishing to make a good faith creation. note: I'm not objecting the the speedy (I can't judge what I can't see), but the protection seems unwiki.--Rob 21:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings and sites of Oklahoma City

[edit]

Tagged for speedy as redundant per Category:Buildings and structures in Oklahoma City. Hard to argue: it is precisely that. But it's not a speedy criterion. Just zis Guy you know? 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of Venus

[edit]

NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of Venus should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. This article is not advocating colonies on Venus, it is presenting ideas for such a venture that have been published elsewhere and listing their pros and cons. If you come away with good reasons why Venus is not a great place for a colony, the article has served a useful purpose.--agr 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of the Moon

[edit]

NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of the Moon should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Snowball Keep. Tawker 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of Mars

[edit]

NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of Mars should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Snowball Keep. Tawker 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of the asteroids

[edit]

NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of asteroids should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. Barring what I said above, merge into Colonization of the outer solar system.  :) Dlohcierekim 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Snowball Keep. Tawker 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of the outer solar system

[edit]

NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of the outer solar system should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Merge (fixed, I can't read). Tawker 05:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of Titan

[edit]

NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of Titan should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bait dog

[edit]

Was recently run through AfD with no consensus, and has now become orphaned and transwiki'd. It was proposed for deletion, but since there was no dicdef consensus in the last debate (and since it had previously been an AfD case), this seems like a bad use of prod, so bringing it here.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crenovation

[edit]

Tagged for speedy as "unverifiable and/or neologism - unable to find any support on Google for the claimed origin. Would AfD but can't create pages." AfDing. Term scores <300 Googles, not obviously related. Looks like a protologism. Just zis Guy you know? 12:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gibson

[edit]

The subject of the article is of questionable notability: the author of a short opinion-piece of dubious merit in a now defunct literary magazine and a poem in a web-fanzine. This fails WP:BIO. WP:NOR and WP:VAIN are probably also relevant. Bucketsofg✐ 12:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 patent nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 13:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Assasination Incorporated

[edit]

Is a fake article with no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayechaw (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lancelot's Brother - A Champion's Chronicle (novella)

[edit]

Delete: advert-like article about a book by an author with no WP article of his own ::Supergolden:: 12:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Park

[edit]

Delete: Apparently NN park, in Madison. Which Madison is it in? You just have to guess... ::Supergolden:: 12:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lundy

[edit]

fails WP:BIO, Division III college athlete. ccwaters 13:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article is linked to the wrong Cornell [15]. He's a Div I college athlete that still fails WP:BIO. Still Delete ccwaters 14:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watercolour Home

[edit]

Non notable site. Adveertisement and promotion --soUmyaSch 13:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, fails WP:MUSIC.  RasputinAXP  c 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Television's Interloper

[edit]

A local musical group, one gig at the local rugby club, no records, no record deal, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Middenface 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is huge difference between "signed to" a record label and actually having released a CD, and having significant numbers of people buy it. Myspace and website downloads are worth practically nothing, as it seems every teenage garage band has those. Fan1967 14:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the above point is a viable one regarding accessability of music downloads, the argument for the wiki to be deleted is that it does not follow the WP:MUSIC policy. It fulfils this criteria by including a member of a band who have had national press and a single release 'Without Me' on the 25th of July. New Way Of Decay
  • Comment New Way Of Decay is latching onto the line "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" in WP:MUSIC. The logic is: since MTI contains a former member of BB, if BB barely makes the cut as notable, then MTI can stay. Fan1967 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can assure you that the difference between one gig and two does not matter in the slightest. Whether or not the BB connection is sufficient is the only claim that's remotely arguable. Fan1967 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Arguably by the logic instilled in the reasoning for its deletion is that it doesn't hold up to the wikipedia rules, when it does in fact do this. Simply arguing that the band entry itself has no reason to exist because you personally doubt its merits when it more than succesfully fulfils criteria is sour. The argument by following the string of text should be as follows: the claim that the band are local, when the information has been garned globally, that the band have no recordings, when songs are directly available to download for free and that the band have played a venue of no sizeable note when in fact an entertainment license must be held by the proprieters. That the band have are not a profitable enterprise should not be the first and foremost reasoning for a wiki not to exist. Fairly pointed out by TheKoG that the page may be deemed as vanity is a fair one and has been noted above that the text will be adjusted accordingly. However, further arguing against obvious links to reliable media sources should be discounted or more realistically, contributors should honour the media source before posting further doubt. As for the comments regarding 'whether the band gigged once or twice' should be held as valid, in the first instance because the reason a page should be flagged for deletion should at least be factual to gain any weight and secondly, that the information by standards is grossly inadequate. The example in this case comes in the form of Fan1967 and their reassurance about gig numbers. The room for error was 100% When you do the maths, this is no small percentage. If the argument for the pages deletion is in splitting hairs, then the case for its approval should be held with equal intensity. In other words, if contributors are reluctant to stick to the discussion in hand, then they should at least honour the facts, or find another wiki page to gripe about. Noteably RGTraynor is under the impression Eric Clapton needs to front a band for it to fulfil the criteria, which clearly shows a lack of understanding of both the wiki guides and irony.
  • Comment - Perhaps you might debate the points we've actually made, rather than presenting straw man arguments. No one has said MTI should be deleted because it's "local," nor does the "information [having been] garned globally" factor in to the slightest degree -- any 14-year-old wannabe can put up a MP3 that can be downloaded worldwide. Nor does anyone allege that it has made no recordings at all; simply that no recordings it has made has verifiably satisfied WP:MUSIC's 5,000+ (or certified gold) sales mark. Nor do the reasons MTI hasn't played in a major venue figure into the criteria; only that it hasn't. My comment about Clapton was a sound analogy; it might not take a Clapton to make a band notable, but it sure does to make a band with only two (tiny) gigs, no albums, no sales and no airplay notable. I recommend WP:CHILL. RGTraynor 07:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the bye, while I'm at it, the sole edits of 82.68.93.190, Miscellaneousfiles and New Way Of Decay are in this article and this AfD discussion. We might add WP:VAIN to the till, at least. RGTraynor 07:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rantings Of Madmen

[edit]

Claims to be a sort of dissident forum created by users banned from the forum for the Ctrl+Alt+Del webcomic. However, the article doesn't even include the forum's URL. The article is mostly about an utterly non-notable spat on an Internet forum. Falls way short of meeting WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You noticed that too? Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonang-Kalachakra Controversy

[edit]

There is no reason for an article under this name - the term/phrase was an invention of its creator, a since-banned wikipedian who created a number of POV diatribes that have also been deleted. The issues referred to are discussed in the respective pages for Jonang, Kalachakra, Shugden, etc. Sylvain1972 14:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Nandesuka 13:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005-2006 US-Israeli threats to attack Iran

[edit]

As a selective collection of factoids, the page constitutes original research promoting the thesis that a US-Israeli alliance threatens Iran. The verifiable facts it contains should be presented in context as part of United States-Iran relations and Iran-Israel relations. Tom Harrison Talk 14:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More discussion at Talk:2005-2006 US-Israeli threats to attack Iran#Original Research Tom Harrison Talk 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a synthesis of facts in so many ways:
  1. The mere allegation of "threats" is mere speculation based on current policy. A nuclear-armed NK isn't acceptable either, but it's pretty clear we're not about to attack them.
  2. the three-country link. There's no link between the U.S. and Israel other than expressed concern over Iran's nuclear weapons programme. That's hardly unique and many other nations have expressed such. Yes, they are the most likely to strike Iran, but that's OR and not apropos for this article.
  3. combining "possible attack targets" in this article. I don't see the point of combining this with the threats or perceived threats other than as crystal-balling a future attack.
  4. Motives. When the U.S. hasn't even issued an overt threat to attack, merely stating that it doesn't wish Iran to be armed with nukes, and now we're speculating about oil? Speculation on the motives of a yet-to-happen event is just terrible.
It seems like this is being written as a precursor for a presumed or predicted Iran-Israel-Iran war. If that happens, go ahead and write up your Precursor, Targets, Motivations, etc. Until then....it's groundless. --Mmx1 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise suggested by ADB below is to rename to 2005-2006 Iranian diplomatic conflicts and then work on the POV. Seabhcán 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Interesting that every single Keep vote has come from a non-American. Should I trouble myself to detect some bias there? For my part, I didn't make a judgment on the article's POV, but on its plain original research. Essays and op ed pieces certainly have their place, but encyclopedias are not among them. RGTraynor 18:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I'm an American, and I think the information should be kept. I don't see as much of an NPOV problem as others do. There's lots of WP articles that have implied perspectives, even if they're simply cultural blind spots. In this case, it's good to have material which provides an alternate viewpoint.
  • comment - the article itself is POV/OR in its title; why bundle the actions of the US and Israel into one article, other than to imply a deeper relationship on this subject between the two nations than a shared concern? I'd consider changing my opinion to split to "US threats..." and "Israeli threats...", though it would still have some POV problems, albeit ones that could possibly be solved by editing. — AKADriver ☎ 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with this alternative. We could then include more prominently threatening comments made by the Irianian president.Seabhcán 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iranian president's remarks have been already covered in three separate articles namely: Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad and Isreal and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Therefore Seabhcán argument is not acceptable.--Mitso Bel21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
United States-Iran relations and Iran-Israel relations. Tom Harrison Talk 13:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about Iran's WMD and Iran's nuclear threat are nothing but speculations. However I think nobody (including me) is against having such articles in wikipedia. Keeping the current article is encouraged by wikipedia policy. --Sina Kardar20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What norm?--Mmx1 21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Lukas (T.|@) 07:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains only references to documented past events and makes no predictions. How is it "Crystal-ballery"? Seabhcán 10:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You call it "bordering on propaganda"? Can you give an example of which parts are incorrect? Seabhcán 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. First of all, the title "Threats to attack Iran" imposes that the US and/or Israel deliberately threaten Iran. It is not the case. Iran actively procures nuclear technologies that will allow it to have nuclear weapons in 5-10 years, while US and Israel react verbally to these actions. It is not a symmetrical situation, and highlighting the threats, as is done in this article, serves Iranian propaganda by making the verbal threats look as frightening as Iran's nuclear plans. Second, every insignificant statement said by any US official is recorded, as if it is really important and reflects an official policy. Again, US officials are just reacting to Iran's actions and statements, which are an order of magnitude worse. All this makes me want to just delete this article and put just a small paragraph about the whole issue in "United States-Iran relations". --Gabi S. 12:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the title could be changed to something more NPOV, but that is not a reason to delete the article. I don't understand your claim that the threats are not deliberate. How can you accidentally, repeatedly threaten to invade a country? These threats have been repeated numberous times by many high level US political figures. It is widely believed that the US is threatening Iran. It is daily news. Rebels in Iraq have vowed to defend Iran from attack, so they must believe it too. Many writers and commentators, including numberous respected US journalists have commented on these threats. The former UK foriegn minister commented on them. France today declared it would not support such threats. It is notable.
You say that US politicians are simply reacting to Iran's actions. By this I assume you mean Iran's production of nuclear fuel. Why do these politicians react to Iran's actions with talk of bombings and invasion, while they give no such reaction to Brazil's recent announcement of production of nuclear fuel. Surely this difference of responce is notable?
Finally, Iran has no proven plans to produce nuclear weapons. The only countries which accuse it of secret plans are the US and Israel. On-one else seems to think there is a great threat. Infact the entire issue of this supposed Iranian conspiracy theory, true or not, has no evidential backing and is based solely on US and Isreali government statements. If this article is deleted, then there is a very strong case to also delete Iran and weapons of mass destruction. Seabhcán 13:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains no comments from US figures other than speculation from journalists and other outsiders about unnamed high-level officials having made up their minds on the matter, and the official U.S. position which is fairly vague about invasion.
WMD is not solely nuclear weapons, there is well cited material regarding Iran's biological and chemical weapons programs in the Iran WMD article.
The link between the US and Israel is OR. Until such an event happens and you can point to a link between the two countries, these shouldn't be covered together.
Moreover, as I stated above, the article is collected around crystal-balling a potential attack - listing potential targets and motivations. This is silly and absurd when there is only speculation about treats to attack/invade. If and when such an attack is made, these no longer become OR. However, basing an article on speculation is crystal-balling. --Mmx1 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that the war is speculation or the threats? Because this article is about threats. Seabhcán 15:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you said, but I also think I made my point clear, favoring the deletion of the article. I'm not going to take it any further. --Gabi S. 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
President Bush has stated publically "all options are on the table," and specifically refuses to rule out military action. Pretending this is not a threat is naive. Abe Froman 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should he rule out military action, and why would you expect him to, invasion or not? The link is speculative and OR. Nobody in their right mind makes any concessions in diplomacy unless it is calculated to win trust or as part of a quid pro quo. --Mmx1 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The previous passage is the OR. President Bush stating "all options are on the table," is verifiable. The rest of the Threats article also meets WP:V. Nearly every passage is cited. Conclusions editors draw beyond the sources in the article is their own OR, not the article's. Abe Froman 16:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm not proposing we put my speculation in the article. You are. Bush has said all options are on the table W.R.T. North Korea, as well as the speculated tax hike, for strengthening social security, and many other policies. The belief that "all options are on the table" somehow translates to "we'd really like to do this" is a fallacy and speculative on your part. --Mmx1 16:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet in relation to Brazil behaving in exactly the same way as Iran, Bush has said nothing. Isn't that notable? Seabhcán 16:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is notable, in Foreign relations of Brazil or Foreign relations of the United States. If there's enough material, someone more knowledgable than I could write Brazil-United States foreign relations. I would oppose the creation of Suspicious absence of US-Italian threats against Brazil. Tom Harrison Talk 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As would I. However, if the US spent three years issuing near daily threats to Brazil, a list of such threats would be notable.Seabhcán 16:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see such issued threats, as opposed to implied or speculated. More like "daily speculation in the media". --Mmx1 17:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the Iranian President was asked whether he would bomb the US, and he answered "All options are on the table", would you not consider that a threat? Seabhcán 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider it nothing new and political-speak for "Do you take me for an idiot? I'm not revealing my cards" If I wanted to stir up anti-Iran sentiment, I'd claim that it implies a threat, but that's not the place of wiki.--Mmx1 17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; in Brazil-United States foreign relations. Tom Harrison Talk 16:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is too much material to merge. It would flood the article. Seabhcán 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone provide any info that Brazil has threatened the existence of any other country? Hence, why would the U.S. threaten Brazil....how farsical.--MONGO 01:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Threats and Alleged violations sections are all that needs to be merged, and the former frankly longer than it needs to be as it is a cataloguing of media speculation. You could do a 1-para writeup of each and cite the same sources.
Any useful Likely Targets should already be in Iran and weapons of mass destruction#Facilities (that's where it was pulled from, it appears)
Please read the section again: Cities likely to be targets according to the Centre for Nonproliferation Studies [17] and the Oxford Research Group [23]: the likely targets according to the CNS and the Oxford Research Group are not just towns with nuclear research facilities, but also towns with military facilities. Boud 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Motives should already be in the individual "relations" articles.
This is the user's very first edit of wikipedia, probably a sockpuppet.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genda Singh & Sons Ltd

[edit]

Delete. Two line vanity article written by User:Bharj, which is the last name of the owners. If "manufacturing the coat of arms of Uganda" (whatever that means) entitles GS&S to an article I do not know, but this substub is not it. Google search for ("Genda Singh" Uganda) returns one unrelated hit. ("Genda Singh") alone returns a lot, but none related here. If this thing really did exist, it could be recreated later with sources. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.  RasputinAXP  c 20:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodspaceguy

[edit]

Nickname for a non-notable political candidate, but since this pushes the bounds of notability, I am bringing it here instead of prodding. According to Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004, Michael had 5,687 votes to (somewhat narrowly) lose the nomination of the Libertarian party. I don't believe this meets WP:BIO, although references to press, etc., might sway me. "Some people read his proposed program" doesn't do it for me. Delete, but if kept it most definitely needs to be moved. bikeable (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ouk (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who run as Libertarians know that they are not going to win their election race, but they run because they think that it is so important to be a spokes person for individual liberty. In the political arena, people who run as Libertarians are like people who are willing to die in battle because they believe that individual liberty is so important. When the Libertarian Party lost its major party status in 2004 in Washington State (leaving only the Democrats and Republicans as major parties) the news media did not even feel this loss of choice was newsworthy and did not significantly inform the voters of the loss of this third choice. The big significance of Goodspaceguy is that he is actively advocating for the coming Orbital Space Colonies which will be the huge accomplishment in our new Twenty-first Century. Our technological advancement is continuing at rapid speed. In the 20th Century we humans went from the Horse and Buggy Age to the beginnings of the Space Age in only 57 years - In 1957, the orbiting Russian Sputnik announced the beginnings of the Space Age to the people of Earth. People just do not realize the fantastic future that is coming. Libertarian Democrat Michael Nelson (goodspaceguy) is attempting to contribute. Michael G. goodspaceguy Nelson 02:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is not a debate on whether he is a good person, or is trying to contribute to society. The question is whether he is a notable person. In general, losing candidates fail on that score unless they have some other claim to fame, or managed to lose in a noteworthy fashion. Neither appears to be the case here. You may also want to review the discussion about autobiographical articles at WP:AUTO. - Fan1967 12:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Indeed, candidates for legislative office do become notable per Wikipedia guidelines by virtue of winning. That being said, Fan1967's comments are spot on. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and I'm sure that as you must respect that legislatures have rules and laws governing their operation, so do we. Indeed, there's a standard delineated on WP:VAIN: "The best way to increase the level of one's wide ranging interest to others is to first actually do something of interest itself, then wait for someone else who has a neutral interest in what you have done to write about it. Attempting to raise this type of interest in one's self or in one's associates via Wikipedia is putting the cart before the horse. Since we are all inherently biased towards ourselves, it is usually best to await the day when someone whom we have never met might choose to write such an article about ourselves, thus proving beyond a doubt that such a neutral interest does indeed exist." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public advocacy forum. RGTraynor 14:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People usually don't write about those who have lost. That leaves only the loser to write about the attempts to defend individual liberty. The media usually ignores the Loseatarians. It is up to the Loseatarians to spread knowledge about what they attempted to do. Others will write about the winners. 206.188.48.177 18:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedily redirected to Bricks and clicks business model. Just zis Guy you know? 15:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click And Mortar

[edit]

Advertisment, Scam Optimale Gu 14:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. While I nominated this and probably shouldn't be closing it as well, I will, based on the discussion and this message left on my talk page. It is obvious the students that created it are getting into trouble at their school and I feel like helping them out. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin tiger

[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things thought up in class even if they are well written. Delete and send to WP:BJAODN. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note: Due to vandalism and reversion the following comments were accidently taken out. (That should have said the following two comments). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 15:15, 8 May 2006.

1. Primary (original) research- The Tiger wasn’t my idea, but I did research it. 2. Original inventions- Its not my invention. 3. Critical reviews- The entry is kept strictly unbiased. 4. 5. and 6. have nothing to do with the Mandarin Tiger entry One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers- It is a fact that tigers appear at Bergen Catholic, and many people are interested in the subject. Who is a more reputable publisher then an eyewitness to every single event? A fact is an actual state of affairs, which can be an historical event, or a social or natural phenomenon- Mandarin Tiger spawning are not only a piece of history for Bergen Catholic, but is a social and natural phenomenon as well. One common temptation for young editors is the urge to share new phrases, fashions, or ideas that they or their friends have invented. Writing an article on Wikipedia might seem like a great way to do this -- after all, if you enjoy this new fad, won't other people appreciate it too?- Mandarin tigers are not a fad. The entry on them does not explain how to create one in great detail, and only is listed in order to give some background. We are not encouraging people to create them, just explaining the history.

Oh and look again Hetar, I only compared them in the matter of creation if anything. Hu-hu-hook-edd on Phuhonics just isn't cutting it with you huh?AA Savage 23:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save if you want this deleted, prove to me how it violates the rules. and once you say something like "its not real" prove to me that it isnt real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 9 May 2006.

This page is based on a factual account of an actual witness of the said "mandarin tiger" therefore in accordance with New Jersey law if this page is taken away it will be taken as a matter of harrasment towards the said "witness" and therefore the persons at fault for the deletion will be sued for the harrasment due to the deletion of the page and there by questioning and insulting te integrity and powers of observation of the said "witness" of the said "mandarin tiger". -Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius

keep the page, this is not original it is fact it is a scientific discovery that must be spread throughout the world for all to know.-Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius

However, as long as this page remains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooka the page of the mandarin tiger cannot be deleted. Otherwise Leprauchauns, aliens, pookas, unicorns or any other mythical creature with no known tangible evidence of existance MUST BE DELETED FROM THIS SITE.-Peter Coyne AKA Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius

THe following must be deleted if this page is deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlock , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon Peter Coyne AKA Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 May 2006.

Strong Emphatic Delete unnotable neologism--Nick Y. 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It is more than debateable that if a unicorn no matter of its fame, being a mystical creature conjured in the imagination of another...a "original idea" if you will which falls under the policy of deletion as do all the topics that i gave the links to, that a mandarin tiger is a myth just the same which becasue of all in favors of deletions opinion of the topic it is in violation of the deletion policy. I propose that though this (mandarin tiger) is a myth,, your unicorns and leprechauns are just the same, and so in since the only difference between them is that you wish to delete our myth and keep another, and that ours is not as widespread in fame but then again the only way for the Mandarin Tiger to gain the reputation of the unicorn it must be spread to the public through sites such as this as a historical myth of a real place: Bergen Catholic High School case closed -Peter Coyne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 May 2006.

Yea, I've read your "WP:NFT" and I'm pretty sure that I already proved the Mandarin Tiger entry worthy of keeping its page. Or did you just miss that? /sarcasm AA Savage 12:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SaveAll those creatures are the same thing a creation from someones mind, except that they are more famous, so tell me how many people to know about a mandarin tiger does it take to get it to the level of fame needed to become a true myth? I am saying this: If this page is deleted becasue this is considered made up then the pages i listed above must be deleted becasue no matter how famouse they are they are a figment of someones immagination, unless anyone who calls for the deletion of this page can preovide more tangible evidence for the existance of a unicorn than we have for the existance of teh mandarin tiger.-Peter COyne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 May 2006.

Save My argument is right and whoever put up that warning at the top knows it, has nothing to say, and therefore resorts to something stupid like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 May 2006.

Save

THIS DOESNT SAY IT WAS MADE UP IN SCHOOL ONE DAY!!! for the 13th time or something. And Peter Coyne, the IP adress guy, who also helped create the Mandarin Tiger, is right. i back that up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) .

As the author of this, let me say that I'm not ballot stuffing. People want this to continue and it's not harming Wikipedia anyway. It's not as though this site will ever be accepted as an academic source. --Chris Conway 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save - Someone please tell me, why do you care so much? who cares if a Mandarin Tiger article is here? and why do you care? are you afraid that people are going to think that they're real? well they are! and if you dont think they are, prove to me that they aren't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 May 2006.

Delete - It's a well-written and amusing hoax article. It would be perfect for a web page, but ultimately does not belong here on wiki. Whpq 16:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save - It's not a hoax! it's a real thing! and if you dont believe that, prove that it's fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 May 2006.

Save "Pathetic little inside jokes?" You know what's a joke? You and your argument with no facts to back it up. How would you seriously expect anyone to believe your little "study" on Wikipedia? Other encyclopedias don't need you volunteers because they can't be changed. "Volunteer Fact-checkers?" Did you think of that clever title all by yourself? I hope you do realize that anyone with the mentality of a five-year-old could run this site. My "prank" wastes their time? Anyone who thinks being a "volunteer fact-checker" is something cool to do, they obviously have way too much time already. As for it being a prank, everyone has still failed to prove it so. Its interesting how you all leave a comment and then run away from the computer so that you don't see how much you are ripped apart in these entries. WHY DON'T YOU CHECK THE WHOLE PAGE, AND THEN COMMENT. Or is even that out of your aptitude for reading? And if you think one organized tiger page is too much for Wiki to handle, try a thousand angry students with all the time they want during school to paste little Mandarins into every single Wiki article. Your blocks are too easy to skirt anyway, so don't think you are protected. AA Savage 17:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TO ANYONE TALKING ABOUT WP:NFT

[edit]

It states there: "School crazes, fads, and fashions can end up in Wikipedia. But only if someone first sits down and researches them, and publishes a book, an academic paper, or a magazine/journal article detailing that research. Then the subject becomes eligible for Wikipedia."

The Mandarin Tiger can be considered a school craze, because our school is crazing about it. So basically, i or one of my colleagues will write an academic paper, and then the Mandarin Tiger page shall be forced to stay, according to the WP:NFT guidelines.

If the paper is published in a respected journal or widely-read book, yes that would probably do it. Guinnog 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right... We'll take it then. Grandmasterka 23:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Two Cents

[edit]

If I say so myself, I persoanlly think that Wikipedia is extremly corrupt and bias towards what they allow on their website. You guys are very hypocritical when you allow unicorns and such to be on the site yet you exclude the Mandarin Tigers. Also, i would like to ask a few questions: Are livestrong bands a school carze, fad, and a fashion? Yes they in fact are considering I walk around the halls at school and about one in three kids has one. On this note, has there been scientific reaserch, a book, or an academic paper published on a livestrong bad? No, there has not. So why should it be allowed on Wikipedia. Oh and... if anyone thinks that livestrong bands are legitimatly on this site because Nike has written numerous magazine articles on it, then whats stopping Nike from writing any old article to be posted on Wikipedia. What I am saying is: Wikipedia says that it wants to obtain the sum of all human knowledge when in fact a "Mandarin Tiger" is part of the sum of all human knowledge. I think you should change that to "the sum of only a select few 'Fact-checkers' knowledge", which in my opinion, is not much at all. ;) 24.56.143.101 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Chris, Thaureaux (Long live the Mandarin Tigers!)[reply]

The livestrong band was widely published in verifiable sources. This exists in only one high school. We are trying to have a credible and reliable encyclopedia, and allowing a craze that exists in only one school to be here does little towards that end. Grandmasterka 00:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC) , I'm leaving this discussion, as many people here refuse to be convinced no matter what reason we provide. I also suspect there may be some trolling going on. Grandmasterka 00:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to address some points that haven't been explained over-and-over on this page, I comment. Don't compare the livestrong phenomenon to your isolated joke about the Mandarin Tiger. Shopping catalog? No, we have references from six sites: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Your Mandarin Tiger has zero. You seem to assert that WP:NFT doesn't apply for some reason. Well, NFT is part of a policy, not a little game we play to keep kids from Oradel from vandalising the site. You say YOU ARE BEING SHREDDED!!. Hate to break it to you—you're not doing anything revolutionary. Seems like you're keeping this up to rebel. To you, this is a valiant rebellion against the Wikipeida empire. To the people who want to delete your page, it's just an everyday AFD. Hyenaste [citation needed] 03:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because hoax is not a speedy. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Criteria, if it was I would have deleted it right away. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save - Everyone opposed to this article keeps dodging the fact that there are other made up characters that are on Wiki. And you claim that they are there because they have a lot more people that believe in them. BIG DEAL, more people will catch on to the Mandarin Tiger, just like they did for the first "warlock" or whatever. The warlock had to start somewhere, and the Mandarin Tiger has to start here. DanBC08 13:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And people think this is stupid .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster 198.143.64.82 13:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Chris Thaureaux[reply]

Save- Wikipedia contains articles of made up creatures within movies, videogames, and books. The "Mandarin Tiger" article is no different.

But not things made up in school one day, as has been explained above. Guinnog 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



As an originator of the page - just delete it. The joke's over. Delete the page as quick as possible. It's done.

Speedy Delete I withdraw my statements made before and now move for the deletion of this site.

If Anyone can help get this page deleted, please do, because it is causing big problems at a school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.38.126 (talk • contribs)

Heh, I'm pleased it is. Ever heard of Karma? But cheer up, chipmunk, for it almost certainly will be deleted soon. Hyenaste [citation needed] 23:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 with Martha Angle Dorsett. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles William Dorsett

[edit]

The only claim to notability according to the article is unsuccessfully running for governor about a hundred years ago. There's no information about any impact or significant career before, during or after that. Hirudo 15:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Frequent Words of the Persian Today Corpus

[edit]

All of the information on this page is lifted verbatim from the page Persian Today Corpus so nothing is lost by deleting this article. The information in it is important and interesting but is, in my opinion, much better suited to its current place on the Persian Today Corpus page which also has been expanded to include more information. That article is not overlength or anything else so there seems little reason to keep this page. The Persian Today Corpus page is about the publication as a whole and The Most Frequent Words of the Persian Today Corpus is just a brief summary of the publication.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LanceHeart

[edit]

This article has been around for awhile, but it's about a character in a defunct webcomic we've never had an article for. It doesn't meet WP:WEB, and as it was created and primarily edited by User:LanceHeart, WP:VANITY is also an issue. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- non-notable nonsense, and it looks like vanity to me. Fabricationary 15:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is of no consequence whatsoever.--Nydas 18:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CurbCarrier

[edit]

Is that notable or just an advert? Together with Curbcarrier Optimale Gu 15:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curbcarrier

[edit]

Is that notable or just an advert? Together with CurbCarrier Optimale Gu 15:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of series connected to the Tommy Westphall Universe

[edit]

This should be deleted for many reasons: This article violates WP:NOR, as there are no definite references to this in any listed series; the article is nonsense, in that it doesn't explain criteria and lists shows that premiered years before or after St. Elsewhere, and it violates WP:NOT in that all this is, therefore is a list of shows that have some sort of tenuous link based on one person's speculation that doesn't make a lot of sense in the first place. MSJapan 15:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs some rewriting/cleanup and some sources, but the basic information is not Original Research - I just did a quick Google search and this came up on the first page of results: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~kwgow/crossovers.html wikipediatrix 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, while that's somewhat well-organized, if still a bit "I've got too much time on my hands" inspired", nobody's got any idea where any of the other shows are coming from as far as this list on WP is concerned, and therefore it's really not telling anyone anything that is of any use. I could conceivably add any show I wanted, becauzse there's no way to really check. If there is a way to check the actual sources, but it's only off that site you found, don't we have a copyvio problem? MSJapan 16:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 with BitTorrent. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent shocking

[edit]

The linked to article does not appear to relate to the article. No google results about "torrent shocking". Bittorrent is designed in such a way it is not possible to place different material in a torrent than that which it was originally supposed to contain, or at least there has been no reported cracks have occured. Appears to be designed as a scare-article. Mrjeff 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with BitTorrent after signifcant clean up and shortening. Otherwise delete as unnotable neologism.--Nick Y. 01:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desikids

[edit]

This is an advertisement for a UK-based website that sells books to the Indian sub-continent. The website has an alexa rank of 1,588,563.


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

The result of the debate was Merge to Pizza delivery. The merge was already done, so nothing else needs to be done but a redirect. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza box

[edit]

This article has no use and is on a non-notable topic. It doesn't even need to be transwikied as this is not a definition of a word, nor of a phrase that cannot be understood from its constituent parts, both of which (Pizza and Box) have their own definitions already. It is not possible to give a cultural history of the pizza box, nor its current cultural impact: it's a box; it contains pizza; that's it. Vizjim 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update comment - I've put all of the current content of this article into Pizza delivery, where it's in context and makes sense. The onus is on those voting to keep to provide new content for the article that would justify its existence, as currently it is entirely redundant. No information currently in Wikipedia will be lost by deleting this article.Vizjim 09:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, why would you want to keep this article? It's a non-notable dictionary definition which nobody would be likely to search for, the entire content of which is duplicated in another article anyway. Nobody's expanded it in a year and a half, and nobody during the course of this AfD vote has managed to work out a way of expanding it beyond a pointless nn dicdef stub. Vizjim 13:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black billionaires

[edit]

Technical nomination of what appears to be an incorrectly-done AfD. No opinion from me -- yet. TheProject 17:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got bold and switched that version to be a redirect to this page. GRBerry 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le gree de haut

[edit]

This seems to be some fellow named Spurrier putting his own house on wikipedia. I'm sure I've seen this house and it's just a normal residential one. - Mon Vier 13.41 26th March .


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McConnell

[edit]

Not notable and possibly vanity: appeared as a guest on a 71-second track by the band Tool, but other than that, all he seems to do is run a camp. I suspect that these may be two different people, however, neither of whom would merit an article on their own. There seems to be no information regarding this guy (e.g. DOB) other than his minor participation in these two ventures. Dylan 17:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 A6. Royboycrashfan 18:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Denenberg/Temp

[edit]

POV essay/personal attack. There may be an encyclopedic article on this local politician but this is not it. Court Jester 17:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. I'm closing this early, either WP:SNOW or pushing CSD A7 to it's limits as it's essentially about a group of amateur "film makers" with no assertion of notability. Take your pick. kingboyk 11:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoy productions

[edit]

Complete & utter vanity. Unencyclopedic, non-notable...need I say more? Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrace view

[edit]

Delete. Obviously non-notable apartment complex; article meerly [sic] serves to demonstrate the low quality of education at Virginia Tech. Was prod'ed by Blnguyen, who remarked, "a random block of flats, not notable". discospinster 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ringmonkey

[edit]

Somehow an extended discussion of this term came into being where it's really only worth a dicdef. Used -- if at all, which is by no means certain -- only by a very limited community. Flunks Google test with only 2 relevant hits, both from Wikipedia. Unreferenced and probably will always remain so. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banana faced wild rabbits

[edit]

Zero google hits for "Banana faced wild rabbits", "Banana faced rabbits" or "Banana faced rabbit". Zero Google hits for the paper listed by Gilland. There is an "E. Gilland" who does research into rabbit anatomy, but there is nothing but that one paper to claim the existence of these rabbits. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite what the above say, this article is factually correct and definitely NOT a hoax. How many rabbit experts are there on here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.184.115 (talk • contribs)

The details of this article are, as far as I am aware, all correct.

Verification of the details of this article can be found in the following:

'Latin American Species', F. Thomson, 1983 'Native species of Paraguay and Uruguay', B. Killigon, 1993

Please note that the above user removed the Afd and hoax tags from the article, blanked Template:AfD in 3 steps, and created an article called Cunt in the face. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note also that a google search on "Killigon" turns up only gaming sites. It appears to be a character name. Also note the earlier edit that claimed this rabbit has a gestation period of 21 months. That's an elephant, not a bunny. Delete this farce. Fan1967 18:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dairy_Hill

[edit]

It's about a small-town ice cream stand -- WP:NN Marysunshine 18:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Shanel § 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El kondor pada

[edit]

Recreation of previously-deleted content under a different name. The original article was deleted because there are absolutely zero references to indicate that this song has any notability. The song article keeps getting recreated, keeps getting deleted because it's a recreation, and keeps getting undeleted with no valid reason, there are still no references to support the contention that this song is notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what he said in his closure note. In any case, give other users here, who were not aware of the first vote in time, the chance to present evidence. I certainly will do exactly that. A little patientce please, and try to do things by the rules this time - both admins and users. BabaRera 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you are quoting refers to bands, not songs. The evidence of notability of Indexovci is on the deletion talk page. Do you dispute notability of them? BabaRera 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was you who listed this article for deletion in the first place. However, proposed policy says you needed to proceed differently: Disputed notability

Where an article's given topic is deemed by a particular editor to be of little encyclopaedic value, or not noteworthy, it is best to assume good faith and first initiate a discussion upon the talk page of the article. An editor may also consider using either {references}, {importance} or {cite needed}. These steps may reveal sources which will allow more value to be placed upon the article. If no such discussion or sources ensue, an editor could consider listing the article for deletion

In the case of such articles being listed for deletion, such a listing occurs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia editors should outline their reasons for believing the article's given topic to be of no encyclopaedic quality, namely that no independent sources of a reliable nature have been referenced. This will allow a balanced discussion to ensue on the topic's given value, and will determine its worth to Wikipedia. BabaRera 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a different article, with a different title, with very different contents. Why are you bringing this up here? I did not list this article for deletion. Furthermore, inserting templates into the discussion clutters it up and is totally uncalled for. Balcer 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but this it the third creation of this article under as many titles. It's not my responsibility to contact a bad-faith recreater to let them know I've listed their improperly recreated article for deletion discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion of possible sockpuppetry by this user is being conducted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning. Note that if he does have another username on English Wikipedia, by casting this vote he just violated the cardinal rule listed at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. To quote: Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion. Accordingly, alternate accounts are not permitted to vote in any Wikipedia election, nor are they allowed to participate in any similar procedure, such as polls and surveys or the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Balcer 19:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is relevant only if he used multiple accounts to vote in a single discussion. Zocky | picture popups 19:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By my reading, it states alternate accounts are not allowed to vote, under any circumstances. Balcer 19:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. Also, your description of the ad-hominem paragraph that you started as "sockpuppetry discussion" is inaccurate and malicious. I am not violating any rule here. I am entitled to a voice, and the only thing which is not allowed is behavior which attempts to present that there are more than one person while there is one - certainly not what I am doing. I did not even vote in the first voting. I am not violating "one person one vote" principle even if this were a simple vote. I just want to put the things straight since the arguments for non-notability are weak indeed and I am going to rebuke them. BabaRera 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, the rule specifically says "... or the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion ". So, an alternate account cannot even contribute to discussion, much less vote. Balcer 19:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that page explicitly lists forbidden uses of alternate accounts. No one has claimed that the first item (circumvention of block) applies, and the other one says: Sockupuppet: An editor uses more than one account or changes IP to promote the appearance that other people (in reality the same person using multiple accounts) are involved in the same discussion. (should never be used) (bolding from that page). Zocky | picture popups 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doing anything against the policy. Anonimous editors can present arguments in AfD, that is explicitly stated, so I have the right to a voice. BabaRera 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First I want to rebuke arguments about non-notability of the band. Since notability(music) criteria are referred to, let me quote what that wiki link actually says - and note that it has to satisfy at just one of the criteria. This is done in detail in a separate section below on the talk page . BabaRera 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Discussion moved by Zocky | picture popups 19:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The shooting down of one plane, which did not change the outcome of the war in the slightest, was a "historic event"? Please explain. Balcer 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The war certainly was, and shooting down the plane played a great role in propaganda war. --dcabrilo 19:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The war certainly was notable, and the only stealth fighter ever to be shot down is also a notable enough event in itself. Certainly our other appropriate articles consider the event notable. Zocky | picture popups 19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article from The Guardian, dated April 25, 1999, one month after the shootdown of the F-117. It is entitled Grim laughter in the rubble and it very specifically discusses the grim jokes that the Serbs are making about the war. It goes into detail about the particular jokes made about the F-117. Yet it containts no mention of this song, which was played "all over Serbia". Balcer 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interview with Predrag Koraksić Corax, why would he talk about that song? Perhaps he hated is as much as I did :) --dcabrilo 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe. But this reporter was presumably living in Belgrade in those days, talking to Serbs, listening to the radio etc. If this song was so hugely popular, why would he not mention it? Surely it would be juicy tidbit for his readers. Anyway, the point is, clearly one can find Western newspapers writing about Serbian humor during the war. So, presumably, if this song was popular, one ought to find a mention of it in some newspaper, somewhere. Balcer 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered me weather you dispute the notability of Indexovci; there are no guidelines for notability of a song on wikipedia. However, a prominent song of a notable band should be notable. I can offer several links poiting to this. First link, from balkan repository project:[32] - song is included in 3 Index hits during NATO war.Second, they have published 'oprostajni koncert' on which this song is one of their 10 choices (the main hits of theirs) - it is a fairwall sort of compilation, so this testifies about the importance of the song for indexovci; you can google it, for instance here it is sold,[33]BabaRera 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs? Balcer 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To quote it: There is consensus that the vast majority of songs do not deserve an article specifically devoted to them. Most songs should redirect to another relevant article, such as on the album the song was originally released on, or the artist in question. Songs should only have an individual article if there is enough verifiable material to warrant a detailed article. If a song has a body of published criticism, the song should probably have an article on Wikipedia. Even if a song is otherwise notable, there is no reason to start an article which can only say the name of the song and who performed it.. Balcer 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if that is a criterion, than it is more relevant that it has some individual relevance than that if it was a hit. The relevance of the song is that it was an expression of a spirit of defiance during the war. That is larger cultural connotation. This context is confirmed in the links provided - the balkan repository project about nato art, the article in Serbian above (explaining the context) as well as what people from the Balkans say. It is not just any song or even hit. It is a song with much more background and significance than just a name and who preformed it. The relevance of this song indeed is greater for Serbian (and other Balkan) people because of this larger social context - it was a phenomenon that it illustrates that makes it notable. This is what makes it different from other songs, and this is, as you can see, why people care about it. BabaRera 21:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what you quote is just a proposal and not an official guideline.
The more arguments there are about how hugely important this song was, the more puzzling it is that so little information about it can be found from reputable sources. If the whole country was listening to this song during almost the whole war, could one not find any newspaper published at the time that would have mentioned this fact? This should not be difficult: many newspapers have archives which do go back so far. Could someone please try to search? Balcer 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... i'm not aware of many Serbian newspapers having archives which go that far. Zocky | picture popups 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The song is mentioned it the newspapers from the time, but a little remains at this date on the net. But there are still papers that mention it, and the references have been provided: [34] BabaRera 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the talk page of this deletion at all? What about the references provided there? The song is notable, according to [35], for instance. BabaRera 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are searching incorrectly. Try to put quotes in your search box, as in "el condor pada", and that will look for that specific word sequence, which is of course what we need for the song title. This way, we get on Google:
Much less impressive, to say the least. Balcer 21:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes??? Why you little... Why don't we just put question marks at each end and see how many hits we'll get. Internet doesn't follow YOUR rules, and not everyone puts quotes at the beginning and at the end of a certain title of the song. Your quotes mean nothing to me, just look at how many times the word el condor pada or el kondor pada appears when you type it in without the quotes. My golly, people will really think of anything to push their agenda... --serbiana - talk 22:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes on google mean you search for exact phrase. So, indeed, there are less hits, but there are still hundreds of hits. And some links, like this one (a very relevant link) do not have "pada" at all: [36]
You misunderstand. Enclosing a sequence of words in quotes simply means that Google is looking for the words in that specific sequence. It does not mean that actual quotes must be present for there to be a hit. Your searches without quotes will return all pages that mention el, condor and pada somewhere in the text, not necessarily together. Please educate yourself on how Google works. Balcer 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you qouted the number of hits in your google links incorrectly - there are 249 and 79 hits respectively, which is more than 3 times than what you put. Was that a honest mistake - if so, please correct it! BabaRera 23:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible. Google works in strange ways sometimes. When I click on the links I inserted, I get 77 and 25 (slight change from before), but I cannot guarantee that everyone will get the same thing. The point is that it's nowhere near 10,000, as was suggested in the comment I was responding to. Balcer 23:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find some article supporting the notion that google works in mysterious ways? If not, I'll have to ask you to desist from making that argument. Profnjm 00:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I am no expert, but here is one possible explanation, based on information from Google platform. When a user does a Google search, he actually connects to one of the servers which is closest to him. These servers, located all over the world, are not completely synchronized, so it would be possible for two users located in different places to get a different number of hits. This is especially true in this case since, as the title "El Condor Pada" was recently created in Wikipedia and is now being picked up by all Wikipedia mirrors, the number of hits should be continually going up. So, that is one possible explanation. Am I certain this is the case? No, so take it for what it's worth. Feel free to change the number of hits to reflect what you are seeing at your end. Balcer 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually, there is non milosevic press and it does mention indexovci and the song. but it is really a little of it available even on the wayback machine - this was in 1999; a link above from the article in 1999 was provided, i am trying to dig up some more, but wayback machine is slow. Note that WP:N does not ask for such strong proofs of notability, and I would like to see if any other articles have been scrutinized with such attitude of disbelief. BabaRera 21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about other songs, but this song is clearly different, since the main argument for having an article about it is its supposed great political and propaganda significance. Well, if it was so great and all, one ought to be able to find some mention of it in newspapers of the time, or in books about the Kosovo war. Balcer 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the song is mentioned in such sources. However, the old newspapers, let alone books, are not available online (and why would all sources have to be online?) - try for instance searching for 1999 serbian newspapers on wayback machine (like major newspapers - politika.co.yu, blic.co.yu; or freeb92 station etc) to see how little is archived even there; Here is one source, online, that is about art during NATO agression and it gives the song in question as an important example of it:

[37] BabaRera 22:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borise,sta bi tek rekli da smo napravili clanak o pesmama "Ja sam ja" :))))))Dzoni 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja sam vec napisao te pesme na sr wiki, a napisacu i ovde, picka im materina. --serbiana - talk 21:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English language Wikipedia. If you want to converse in Serbian on your Talk pages, please do so, but don't do it on AfD or other multi-user discussion pages. Please either convert your text into English, or I will remove it. And I've already asked you once to stop referring to people you disagree with as Zionists. How many warnings do you need? I don't have a clue what Zionism has to do with this at all, but then, paranoia rarely makes sense. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trans. for Zoe: "boris, imagine what would they say if we created an article about the song "ja sam ja"" (courtesy of the Zockster) - FrancisTyers 21:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments for song notability are now also presented on the talk page; not only the band is notable, but the song as well, according to the proposed guideline - the only one that exists on wiki now. Only if you suspect bad faith of editors who made the claims, that are verifiable (by contacting radio stations for instance), you can claim that, for the purpose of AfD, this is non-notable and should be deleted immediately. BabaRera 16:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny if you speak Serbian (of course), and if you didn't really like the Clinton administration... --serbiana - talk 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is deffinetly Monty Python funny,I can even send it to you in audio with english translation.There is also another very funny song: "It is me' (Ja sam ja) with very funny lyrics about Bill Clinton,Tony Bler,Robin Cook and other butchers,but its extremly funny.Dzoni 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrics is avaiable here, with translation. [38]; the song itself can be heard here: [39]
Yes, I m not dreaming, you have give us a argument User talk:Dzoni#Zionists. --Hevnonen 22:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hevnonen,[personal attack removed. Zocky | picture popups 22:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)(UTC)] language:))))Dzoni 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His objection is that he cannot find articles from 1999 from Serbian press online. Yet, there are almost no articles from that period online. And you are ignoring all other presented evidence. BabaRera 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of the song in English newspapers and in books about the Kosovo war would be fine as well. Plus I am assuming old copies of Serbian newspapers are stored in libraries, both in Serbia and outside of it. Would it be too much to ask one of the Serbian editors involved in this discussion to visit a library and dig up a reference? That would be much appreciated. Balcer 23:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weather the song is mentioned in English press, I do not know. I think Serbian newspapers are stored in few libraries outside serbia, if at all. However, they are available probably in the major national library; some people might store the papers themself - I have a whole bunch of newspapers at my home in Serbia (I live abroad though, and cannot browse them until I go there on holiday), but some other people from Serbia might be able to do it. It is not a small task to browse through the old newspapers though if one does not keep them - since there is probably few libraries that have them. Asking by e-mail the group itself would be the best way to get the references, as they are probably aware of that. See their site [40] and write to indexovo@eunet.yu <indexovo@eunet.yu> and ask them about the song references in the media directly. It is probably the shortest way to check it - if you want to make a good faith effort to come to the bottom of this, the best thing is to ask them directly (they do speak english, I am sure). BabaRera 23:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate. What, for instance, have you to say with regard to the evidence presented at the talk page of this AfD (everyone is ignoring it, it seems). Also, what do you have to say about aking Indexovci themself about the media mentions of the song on indexovo@eunet.yu - it is a way to verify the claims that the song was indeed used on rallies, that it was broadcasted, to check the copyright status of the lyrics/ask permission etc - they can provide you with the data, since you are not satisfied with what users here are claiming; not all sources have to be online, and then, a claim that such and such a paper contains such and such a thing, verifiable in principle, can be established. And what do you think about the claim that you place an undue burden here? What exactly you want to verify, and how does it follow from WP:N policies or policies relevant for AfD BabaRera 23:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far all I have seen are links saying that the song exists and that people liked it, not that it was notable. And it is the responsibility of people making a claim to contact those who might prove the validity of the claim, but just contacting the group who recorded it would probably only get their own inflated feelings of importance. Is there a journalist we can contact? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting to verify the claim that there were radio broatcasts, that the media mentioned the song etc. by asking them for references, not opinion; If you distrust all Sebrs whatsoever, that not only violates WP:AGF, but also makes it difficult to make any arguments at all. For instance, do you dispute the notability of Indexovci? Unlike for songs, there is accepted guideline for that; I have provided a detailed explanation on the talk page. per that guidelines. So, do you agree, per evidence presented (newspaper links with indexovci etc - it has been detailed there) that Indeksovci are notable. And then, the question is what kind of notability about the song you ask to be proved? If it is broadcasting on the media, yes, it has been broadcasted a lot, for instance, on b92 (site freeb92) and one can check with the radio stations that people who claim popularity listened to in bunkers. You can verify it by emailing the radio stations. It is an undue burden to ask people to prove it in a way you do, just to provide means of proving it, as a reference etc. And asking a site is a valid mean - it works that for copyright issues with regard to pictures - providing a way to check copyright status. Why should there be higher burden of verifiability of claims that we make here. Anyone, who doubts it, can ask the radio station about what songs were broadcasted. Given a reference which is not online, it is not a burden of those who reference it to scan it for those who want to see - they have a means to check it, and assume good faith until a reference proves to be bogus. Isnt it that way that it works for copyright issues? Why it would be different for other sources, which are not online? BabaRera 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's it, it's my anti-Serb bias that caused me to put this here, it couldn't possibly be any other reason. You got me. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What motivated you is of no importance. You can ask for evidence, but I am saying that there is a policy here [WP:AGF]. Also, please state your concerns clearly and explicitly, so that there is no misunderstanding.
I have put a detailed argument on notability of the band on the talk page, per criteria. The notability of the band does not seem to be disputed - they meet several criteria, and reliable sources have been given, as required (media articles discussing them are one example, then their numerous tours etc). So, the argument now seems to be not about notability of the band, that is established, but just about the song - and song itself has relevance; there are no accepted notability criteria, so I ask those who dispute the song's notability to state what they ask from a song to be notable. Then we can check how these criteria are applied in wikipedia, and I would ask that same standard be applied. Also, those who claim song is notable, would at least know what they have to prove to those who are saying that it is not notable. So, please, list your cirteria for notability, and we can then proceed discussion in a constructive way - we have to know what we are talking about, and to see bottom of the dispute about notability here; I would want to know what needs to be shown, and then, the sources can be provided (though not all will be online, but that is allowed as far as I understand) BabaRera 02:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write about this event from various angles, nothing is stopping you from adding appropriate sections to existing articles, Nonviolent resistance, for instance. Or, even better, write a separate article Shooting down of the F-117A stealth fighter in 1999 during the Kosovo War or some equivalent title, and describe exactly how that happened, with a section devoted to its propaganda, cultural and political consequences. Nobody is attempting to blot that event out of Wikipedia. In fact, given how many Wikipedians seem to feel so emotional about that event, I am actually quite suprised that such an article has not been written already. Anyway, the entire argument here is whether the song merits its own article, according to the rather strict criteria Wikipedia sets for having articles about songs. Let's stick to that straightforward issue. Balcer 01:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no accepted policy on notability of songs, and the proposal that you quoted (it is just a proposal for a guideline, nothing more), says that song has to have greater sociological relevance, and more content and context to it than just a title and authors. This song has exactly that - it was a hymn of Serbian resistance, and such songs do have articles in wikipedia. See, for instance Lili Marleen. BabaRera 01:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is an argument for notability (are you now disputing verifiability of the claims' and content of the article? let's separate issues here, OK!). The tough times and unjust NATO bombing are exactly what makes this song notable for Serbs - not mere popularity on its own. BabaRera 02:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Song notability Criteria, proposed guideline in wikipedia, relevant in this case

I think it is high time to see what a proposal for a guideline (best that we have) says:

A song may be notable if it meets one or more of the following standards. If a song meets three or more of these standards, it is probably notable; if it meets two, it is a good candidate for notability, and if it meets one, it may border on notablity.

It has been a hit during nato bombing in Serbia, so certainly one of the 20 - this can be checked by contacting by e-mail radio stations b92 (www.freeb92.net), radio index, etc. who can confirm that the song was played during the bombing extensively. Also, listed here [41] as one of the few examples of art in the NATO period (this link is perhaps more relevant in establishing media campagn); as there are no online links establishing popularity directly, verifiability can be best met with contacting the journalists - freeb92 is one of the most popular radio stations, and it is the way to proceed and confirm what Serbian people here say for those who dispute their claims.
I am not sure if this is formally met as there are probably not such charts, but in Serbia, it was popular for quite a few months during and after the bombing, well in the top 100; if there were some charts, it might be possible to dig them up - but system in Serbia is different, and what songs were broadcasted would be the best information that exists. But, under reasonable interpretation, this is clearly true.
Not the case
Yes, index theatre have made few dozen songs, and this is one of their most well known. one can verify that from the index theatre themselves (contact e-mail address provided above). see also the deletion talk page where argument about this was made.
No
No
Yes. It has been published on two compilations and there was a music video - as evidenced by the article from newspapers in '99, quoted above [42], that talks about music video being recorded, as well as a major publicity campaign - in fact, anti-nato sponsored propaganda effort; also evidenced in this newspapers article [43], corroborated by many users here.
I am not exactly sure what is meant here - probably not (what is a major music media source). It has been among "best of" (or the best of) Index songs, is one of the "best of" NATO-war songs, it is on the compilation Oprostajni koncert (evidence provided) but I am not sure if it meets formally the criterion. It was not considered "influential" in some musical sense though.
This is also the case. Numerous tribute pages and mp3 links for it provided source for download, and it has been downloaded by many users in ex-Yu and Serbs in the world. However, what high number of times means, is relative. The exact quotes might be available from some sites, like nostalgija.com [44] - warning - this site has popups; it is a site where much of the ex-yu music can be downloaded (piracy or not - it is the way many people get music from such sites, and one can get a quote from them and get an idea about relative popularity of the song); there are other sites that offer free download, some mentioned above.
As Indexovci are also a comic theater troup, they have incorporated this song in piece of theatar - that is what they do with all of their songs. No quote yet though - might be available from the indexovci group directly; we have their e-mail, so this is verifiable. also, there is a video of their play with the songs - sold here, cover shown and a synopsis, testifying about this:[45]

The synopsis: Snimak predstave u Banjaluci odrzane 2001 godine .Na ovoj kaseti cete cuti I sve ove pesme obrade -El kondor pada,Sta ce mi zivot bez tople vode,Narasli su dugovi,Kada pocnem drugi dnevnik ja,Madlenka,Ja sam ja I oni su oni,Mi smo mi,Donatori gde ste da ste,Govovi se da me vavas,Lepa li je Dano vlast u krugu dvojke,Taze tursija,Sanjala sam nocas da te nema,Zazmuri,Doslo je do krvi,Ne odlazim,Kad sam gladan,Igra ruski rulet srpska Jugoslavija,Zamislim zivot u kom enosis nove cipele,Prica o Bobi Vladackom,Kasno je za brzu prugu,Stranci u Peci

Translates: a recording of the play held in Banja Luka in 2001; you will get to hear their songs: El kondor pada (notice it was listed first), Sta ce mi zivot bez tople vode (what do I need life with no hot water), Narasli su dugovi (debts have grown)...(list of other songs performed during this musical play).

In short, it seems that there are quite a few criteria met, and some are completely documented at this point as well. So, it reiterates the notability claim; nothing to say of the larger war context. BabaRera 03:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is popular song among people of Serbia during 1999 NATO Bombing. Funny resistance those months is something what I will remember forever. This is legendary song for me. --Pockey 09:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, until somebody emails those places you list, you have no verifiable references. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I said, and I think you know it perfectly well. There are on-line references listed, some of them fully establish points for notability; but not all of the points are established by on-line references. Popularity of the song is not confirmed in a way you want it by an online reference (if you dont count google hits), but it is verifiable, since one can check with the station. Other points are (for instance, claim that the song was part of a play - there is a recording of a play being sold; then that the song is Index theatre major song; than that there was a music video; that the song was used in media campagn etc.). But you insist that the popularity is to be proven - while providing contact address for the radio stations (like www.freeb92.net) is, especially for the purpose of this AfD, quite enough - just as providing means of checking copyright status of a picture is enough. Copyright issues were always greater concern for wikipedia than notability of some articles. And why would there be tags for notability etc. if any article that did not present the proofs for notability (and some have much, much less indications and proofs of notability than this article now has) would be imediately deleted. BabaRera 17:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that only a few points are needed to judge song notable - one and it is on border of being notable, and three or more mean that song is notable, per the proposed guideline. This song satisfies more than enough points, and would not even depend on the popularity. So, it would be quite malicious not to take all this into account in judging notability of the song. BabaRera 17:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have half a dozen Serbian editors giving first hand testimony that basically the entire country regularly heard the song in their bunkers; and we have a good number of links to the song in Google, considering the country and age of the song. Sure, we can't write that in the article - but per WP:AGF, and given the fact that no one is denying it, and not giving any argument against it, we can take that as evidence of popularity. I'd be much happier if someone found an "already published" reference for popularity. But if not, the already published references for verifiability, plus this unpublished evidence of notability, should be sufficient; because the standards for the two are not the same. AnonEMouse 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that we just don't have any verifiable sources for the song's notability. So, in my opinion the best way to resolve the issue for now is to merge the contents of this article into Indexovo radio pozorište. The article about that group, which has been shown to be notable, is a sad stub at this point and could use some content. Once verifiable sources are provided, the article can be created again. Let me again quote the first two sentences of the guideline, with my emphasis added: There is consensus that the vast majority of songs do not deserve an article specifically devoted to them. Most songs should redirect to another relevant article, such as on the album the song was originally released on, or the artist in question. Songs should only have an individual article if there is enough verifiable material to warrant a detailed article. Balcer 18:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there is plenty of verifiable material to warrant a detailed article. The only thing that isn't verifiable is notability. But there isn't any doubt of notability, given the testimony of the editors, and the many Google sites. Given that, I don't believe verifiable sources for notability are required. That's my whole point. Verifiable sources are required for all information in the article, and the article must be about a notable topic, but the notability merely needs to be true, not verifiable. AnonEMouse 19:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But is that testimony entirely accurate? How can we be sure? For example, some editors claimed above that supposedly B92 radio played this song all during the war. However, that radio was actually closed down by the Milosevic regime on April 2, 1999 (see archived internet page), and only reopened in 2000 (according to information on B92). Could someone care to explain this discrepancy? (the F-117 was shot down on March 27) Balcer 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, B92 was taken over by government, not closed down. The old team formed Radio FreeB92 and regained the control of B92 only after Milosevic was deposited. I don't know when and how long the pro-government B92 broadcasted.
But that's slightly beside the point. All of the editors from the wider cultural area, from different countries and different political positions, people who are often in disagreement over minute details of articles about local affairs, says that this song was popular and notable. Yet you continue to doubt them and bring up small incosistencies in their acconts of events which occurred 7 years ago.
May I ask on what grounds? Zocky | picture popups 20:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. On Wikipedia, you cannot source facts based on the testimony of anonymous editors. I find it puzzling that some contributors to this discussion are unable to understand this. My demonstration here simply served to illustrate how memories are imperfect, facts can get mixed up, emotions can get the upper hand, guesses might be made about facts which turn out to be wrong. This is why verifiable sources are essential. Don't take it personally.Balcer 21:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not about sourcing facts in the article, it is about judging notability. And confirmation for some points on the guideline do exist even online (see the talk page), while other claims can be verified by checking what was broadcasted (regarding popularity, though major broadcasts are just part of popularity, as the whole phenomenon of cult movies etc. is a sort of underground popularity - how is that to be checked?)BabaRera 21:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: the only user who mentioned b92 was me, as a suggestion how to check the claims of those who were listening the song in those times, simply because it was the first radio station to come to mind. I personally was not in Serbia at the time, and was suggesting how to check the claims of users who were. And journalists of b92 might still be able to say weather the song was played in Serbia and to what extent, but it seems that contacting other radio stations might be more relevant (someone who was in Serbia during the bombing can say which stations). That I suggested b92 does not change what they said at all. BabaRera 20:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as far as I know, when a song in Serbia is popular, it will be broadcasted at most radio stations (if they play that type of music at all - some stations for instance do not play folk music etc.), so my guess is that any Belgrade radio station would do; and probably B92 has some of the evidence too. BabaRera 21:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a very specific statement you made: If it is broadcasting on the media, yes, it has been broadcasted a lot, for instance, on b92. So you asserted it has been broadcasted a lot on b92. That assertion is wrong, but it was allowed to stand. No Serbian editor corrected it, even though if they were in Serbia they must have known that B92 was taken off the air, as this was a very big deal at the time and even I remember it being mentioned in Western press. Like it or not, this demonstration of one inaccuracy in your facts puts a dent in the credibility of your other claims. In the light of this, I again insist that verifiable sources are essential, and we cannot just take the word of anonymous editors for notability, as shown here. Balcer 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it wrong? As I said, any popular song would be broadcasted at most stations, and that B92 was taken over does not change that. I still think that it was broadcasted there by the new station policy; however, others are in better position to say it. In efect, in that paragraph I was making an argument for verifying the claims about song being popular that were already made. The fact that such claims can be verified still stands. BabaRera 21:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide your definition of verifiable sources and also answer my question from above? Zocky | picture popups 21:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what my definition is? Use Wikipedia's definition, given in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please read that whole policy page very carefully. Balcer 21:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your definition of verifiability seems to be verifiedness, not at all the same thing. All information in the article is verifiable: you can contact the authors, the publisher, the radio stations etc. Yet, you go on insisting on verified, not verifiable sources. Can you now please answer my question of what grounds do you doubt the truthfullness of a whole series of editors from the area? Zocky | picture popups 21:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policy is:
  • Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
  • Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
  • The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Try to understand the last point especially. Balcer 21:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop the bolding? We're all perfectly capable of reading here. Since you continue to confuse "source" with "mentioned in media", I'll let that one go. Can you now please finaly answer my other question? Zocky | picture popups 21:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not doubt the truthfullness of the editors from the area. I think they are telling the truth. At the same time I want to see reputable sources and verifiable claims, as that is Wikipedia policy and this is how this encyclopedia is build. Clear? Balcer 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is policy for claims made in the article, not for claims about notability; and nevertheless, here it is asked that article be deleted if its popularity (newer mind other criteria which work even for songs that were not popular, let alone proved popular) is not proved. And just listing radio stations that played should be enough of a reference. BabaRera 21:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the song (a satirical song during the war, not ordinary music hit) lies in its sociological relevance - it was sort of a chief resistance song during the war. So, it is actually more notable than the compilation itself. Also, please see the criteria listed to judge songs and how this song fits into them on the talk page of this deletion page. BabaRera 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please read the article before voting? There are no singles, there is no band, it's a theater troop which often performs songs and sometimes publishes them. Anyway, probably no single of any kind was released in Serbia since 1980s, especially not while the country was at war with NATO. This is not a popular commercial hit, it wasn't even available in stores when it came out. It was a political statement and is notable and became popular because of that. Nothing in the world to do with WP:MUSIC. Zocky | picture popups 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop with all these inaccurate guesses already? Here is one website illustrating the healthy state of the Serbian music industry www.b92.net, at least in the past few years. I would like to see some evidence that no records were produced in Serbia during the 1990s. Balcer 21:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Balcer, when El kondor pada was released, B92 did not exist. It was raided by the police on the night the war started, and it didn't come back to life till after the war. Most newspapers, except for Politika, were coming out irregularly, and usually had 4-5 pages (just to give you the perspective of media at the time). Second of all, Indexovo radio pozorište is not a pop band. They don't release records, but they do have some compilations. P.S. the only single from ex-Yu I remember during the 1990s was by Van Gogh, somewhere around 1997. It was not a commercial endevour though. --dcabrilo 21:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are the first to come up with the claim that "that no records were produced in Serbia during the 1990s", you will have to find evidence yourself. "Produced records" are not "released singles". From the death of vynil singles until the age of cheap independent production of CDs, only albums were released in Yugoslavia and later Serbia. Zocky | picture popups 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I took singles to mean records. My mistake. My point was to suggest that maybe the Serbian music industry was not in such disarray in the 1990s as some people claim. For example, why is there such certainty that there were no music charts, so that this song could not be ranked? Just curious. Balcer 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dcabrilo, can you say what radio stations were active and played the song. It would then be possible to check popularity by e-mailing them and asking about the song broadcasts. BabaRera 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BabaRera, absolutely. Balcaer ignores popularity is verifiable... But it's not easy to verify. Somebody in Serbia should contact radio stations and get confirmation. --dcabrilo 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here, Since we are discussing wwwolf vote, something he said in another vote for deletion. He voted delete here, but his comment could serve those who are for keep here [46]. Dcabrilo - could you say the names of the stations that were playing the song, that you remember clearly. That would be very helpful. BabaRera 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(taken from another vote):

(taken from another vote)


I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTED MY ARTICLE,THIS WAS JUST AN IDEA ,BUT I NEVER DREAMED THAT ARTICLE THAT I STARTED WILL GET SUCH A SUPPORT.I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT AFTER WE DEFENDED THIS ARTICLE,THERE IS NO TELLING WHAT WE CAN DO,SINCE JUSTICE HAVE BEEN DONE.THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT ONCE AGAIN,BORIS,BARARERA AND EVERYONE ELSE.

THOSE LIKE ZOCKY CAN TRY AND DEMONIZE SERBS,BUT THEY WILL NEVER MAKE ITDzoni 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to be said, but this user, Dzoni is blocked indefinantly for being a sockpuppet of the communism vandal. Just for those who were wondering... DGX 01:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dzoni has been a disruptive user, and Zocky blocked him for the insults that he had thrown (on nationalist basis). However, he is Serbian (judging by his knowledge of the language, and other things) - was communism vandal Serbian? I find it curious - I will take a look who is the original communism vandal. To me, Dzoni seems to be a very bitter Serbian user, who has lost his house in Croatia and a nationalist, I dont know abut the other stuff. But this is not relevant for this particular discussion, as enough users from the area (Zocky, Dijxtra - Slovene and a Croat), and Serbian editors (dcabrilo, bolmagurski etc) have made the case. I dont think that Dzoni has helped this cause much (even if he started the article) because of his disruptive behaviour, and in fact it seems that this has probably played the role in the first hasty deletion (which went against the majority keep votes). But an article has its place irrespectively of who started it. BabaRera 02:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this article has been discussed extensively. Dont twist other people's words, please! The point of the coment was that WP:V applies to the verifiability of the claims made in the article, not to notability, that has WP:N as policy; how to prove notability is not even discussed - and an official policy on notability does not exist, while per the proposal notability has been explaind on the talk page. You ask verification of the claims on which notability is to be established - you are not even satisfied with verifiability (providing ways to verify by pointing to off-line resources); that is certainly an interpretation that many users have objected to, and this user is just another one. In short, WP:V refers to content on the article, and that what this comment is talking about BabaRera 02:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it is the policy of Wikipedia to have articles only on songs that are notable, the very existence of a song article amounts to a claim that the song is notable. Hence, this notability must be shown with verifiable sources, in accordance with WP:V. Balcer 03:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont you think you are streching things here? There are reasons why there are guidelines (too many songs for instance) and this song is not the one to be eliminated in the first place. But besides, the notability has been established for some points with online references already, and verifiability is provided for the other claims (refering to band and the ststions); so even if you were right, much has been done (and even verifiability of the content does not have to be established in short time - per deletion policy, placing tags like {fact} is the right response, and listing for AfD is only a last resort). BabaRera 03:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are still missing a key piece of the equation here. If you want to prove notability this way, you should write to the email address of the station in question, receive a response confirming the notability of the song (for example information on how often it has been played), and post it here. Then invite others to check if they doubt your verification. At this point you are even assuming that the radio station will answer emails, but what if they will not? Balcer 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough pieces even without verifying the popularity - there are more elements to notability of a song (per proposed guidelines) than just popilarity. And I disagree with you what verifiability means. Saying that a public broadcaster has broadcasted something is verifiable per se, as it is a public information. Saying that portugese (or polish) television has broadcasted some series or TV show in the 60s or 70s might also not have any on-line references, but people will not question good faith of those who remember this and enter such things into the article. Such information is verifiable since there are documents about it, as public information. Verifiability does not require what you claim, and that poit was already made to you. Also, as I said, even if you were right, since the popularity is not the only claim of this song to notability, and since notability does not even have an accepted policy, the common sense is to be applied here. You could maybe ask for verifiability of verifiability, and go as many steps upwards, but at some level you have to rely on common sense (we can determine something - that there are sources, but you ask to source the fact that there are sources; then you might as well ask to source the facy that we can source the fact that there are sources, and so ad infinum; in fact, for notability, we apply common sense directly, for facts in articles, we provide sources and apply common sense that they are sources, and even there we do not source the fact that they are sources). BabaRera 04:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"el condor pada" = 252 hits
"el kondor pada" = 81 hits
This includes google hits on Wikipedia. Let's remove them:
"el condor pada" = 241 hits
"el kondor pada" = 77 hits
Searching on google.it yelds similar results.
Either the song is becoming more popular ;-) or the original searches a few days ago didn't get a reliable result at that time. --Lou Crazy 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, the number of hits one sees appears to be dependent on one's geographical location. I am located in Canada and when I click your two last links, I get 67 and 23 links respectively. And no, my url does not show google.ca. But who knows, maybe my settings are off somehow. Anyway, I accept your numbers, as we should of course take the maximum. Still, 300 hits in total for a supposedly major song does not seem like much. How many hits does one get if one searches using Serbian alphabet? Balcer 03:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not that many, there are two Serbian alphabets, the latin alphabet and the cyrilic azbuka. However, almost all of the Serbian web-sites use the latin alphabet, because it's more simple. So, writing Ел кондор пада probably wouldn't return any hits... --serbiana - talk 03:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the proof on the talk page?. What do you mean votes and comments should be in English - arent they? Or did you mean that references need to be in English - that is strictly false, since all policies allow non-English sources if there are no sources in English. BabaRera 04:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW. I just found another reference. Once again, the reference does not talk about how many songs were sold (because they weren't, it's not a pop album, we went over it again and again), but [47] (it's slow to load from North America) talks about humor during nato bombing. It lists jokes, several emails which were circulating usenet at the time, jokes on the banners on protests, etc. Look for "мотив овог бомбардера нашао се и у песми Ја возим стелта 117-а Индексовог радио позоришта". The article talks only about one song, and that's our baby here :) The article goes on about bomber 117A, and dedicates that paragraph to saying that "motif of this bomber occured in song I 'drive' stealth 117A (most people heard it on the radio/TV, apparent ambiguity about the song name)", and goes on to retell the song, in similar manner as the article in question does. The article is well written, and shows that the song was important part of that humor (or cynicism some would say) on the Serbian part. --dcabrilo 05:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Finally, we have the first source which gives some indication that the song might be notable. We could use a few more, given that this is just a private page and we know nothing about the credentials of the authors. Keep them coming. Balcer 05:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to keep them coming. The website is not "a private page". It's an academic site about Slavic ethnology, with a long list of authors from Slavic countries, easily accessible from the link dcabrilo provided above [48]. Dejan Ajdačić, the author of the text and the editor of the site has a rather long bibliography [49], including numerous books and articles in journals, including the Slavic and East European Folklore Association's journal [50]. Can we now please stop wasting everybody's time? Zocky | picture popups 08:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging up the author's bibliography, it was not linked from the page given. I will let the community judge whether this one sentence mention in one article, the only direct mention we have been able to find after presumably extensive searches, is enough for evidence of notability. For me it is not, and I am sticking to my vote for merging the content into the article about the group which created the song. Balcer 13:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Balcer, it's not only one sentence. It's not mention, it's discussion. BTW. do you think that all songs from Category:Song_stubs should go? Because, according to the community, even songs with much, much, less significance have a place on Wikipedia. --dcabrilo 15:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not all should go but some definitely should. But that is a subject for another discussion. In turn I have a question for you is: what do you have against moving the content of this article to the article Indexovo radio pozorište and leaving this article as redirect. Don't you find it odd that at this point the article about the one song of this band is longer than the article about the band itself? Why do we need to have 2 stub articles, when one would do fine at this point? Balcer 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the only direct mention that was brought up in this discussion - [51] was provided before; also, criteria other than popularity were shown to be satisfied. BabaRera 15:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not count that one because it is from a no longer existing page, the credibility of which cannot, by definition, be easily verified. Anyway, if you want to keep precise count of how many references we have, please do so. It appears at this point we have 2 web hits of any kind which discuss or at least hint at the significance of this song in a coherent sentence. Please correct me if I am wrong and add more. Balcer 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work dcabrilo, finally we have sources, and hope is growing that the article won't be deleted. --serbiana - talk 05:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I must say my contribution to the discussion here was extensive and might not have been entirely objective (though I tried to be polite and not break any rules). Maybe I was ticked off at least a little at the first, atrociously bad version of this article, which was created by User:Dzoni, a ridiculous troll who has now been permanently banned. I will stop at this point and let the community make its decision. But I still hold my opinion that the best way to proceed here is to merge the content to the article about the band and leaving this as a redirect. That will not remove any information that has been entered so far, and will mean we will have one stub article instead of two (at this point). Plus, that will be in accord with the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines.Balcer 16:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the nth time, it isn't a band, its a theatre troupe. - FrancisTyers 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How we got here and what we learned

[edit]

Here's a review of the steps that brought us to this point:

  1. A rather incivil newbie editor creates a bad article about a Serbian song at the wrong title.
  2. It gets afd'd. Local editors uniformly say that the song is notable and that it should have an article. Despite minority opinion for delete, the article is deleted for lack of references, prompting a rather premature RFC.
  3. The incivil editor recreates the bad article at another title, this time correct but misspelt.
  4. It gets afd'd and then speedied as recreated material.
  5. A group of established editors writes a new, proper stub about the song at its proper title.
  6. It gets tagged for speedy deletion. The tag is removed by a yet uninvolved editor.
  7. An old hand speedies the article twice and finally puts it on afd after it had been undeleted twice by different editors.
  8. A series of editors from the wider cultural area consistently say that the song is notable.
  9. The incivil editor is first blocked, then permabanned.
  10. The old hand that afd'd the article accuses the editors who wrote the article of bad faith and, in user talk, refuses to back it up or take it back.
  11. We establish that the song is one of the most important songs by probably the most important satiric radio and theater troop in Serbia and that it has a number of google hits and web references.
  12. We go through a painful tit-for-tat repetitive argument about notability, verifiability, sourcing of facts, sourcing of sources, workings of google, state of Serbia in 1990s, etc.
  13. We finally establish that the song is notable, by finding a discussion of it in an article by a prominent Serbian ethnologist, who happens to be the head of university library at the Belgrade University, by far the most important education institution in Serbia.

And here are some things we hopefully learned along the way:

Here's hoping that next time we'll avoid some of the mistakes we made here. Zocky | picture popups 19:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally

[edit]

Since this has gotten messy, I think counting opinions will be useful. Yes, I understand this is not a vote, but this discussion is also unusually messy. As of the current time, I count Delete: 11 (including 1 for nom) Keep: 20 Merge: 3 Neutral/Keep: 1 Merge or Delete: 1 Keep or Merge: 1 AnonEMouse 20:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So once again policy gets violated by voting. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One can vote, but one can't be sure that the vote has any value. That's all. Profnjm 17:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How come? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Why would a notable song from some other culture be excluded? It is not what wikipedia policies say. English is a universal and most widespread language, and there are many people who might be interested in understanding other cultures. Your reasonong does not make sense to me. BabaRera 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa, Stubbly head, this is one of the stupidest reasons I've heard so far. So, the English wikipedia is only for non-Serbia-related articles? That sounds a little unfair to me, if it's worth mentioning in one Wikipedia, is there a different standard on this one? This article is a millionth of the encyclopedia, having an article about a song that caused SO MUCH comotion when it was suggested to be deleted, proves its notability, as well as the sources and Google hits given on this very page. Whats there to talk about? Keep the song, end of story. --serbiana - talk 00:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I don't think that notability is a universal thing. I'm sure that there are many articles on en.wikipedia.org would not be seen as notable on sr.wikipedia.org, and removed without incident. A bunch of people bickering doesn't create notability. -- stubblyhead | T/c 00:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are there notability criteria that mention explicitly countries other than English-speaking? Do you want to remove German songs, or Jewish issues? Or is it specifically that you consider Serbs insignificant, despite all the criteria that were shown here to be satisfied? BabaRera 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find that comment (stubblyhead) virtually incomprehensible. Nobody claimed a bunch of people bickering made the song notable. Straw man. The people are, actually, debating its merits. That was a gosh-darned dismissive comment. What do you have to say about the arguments for its notability? Anything of substance? Anything to work with? If it's just a bunch of bickerers, why would you say it belongs on Serbian Wikipedia? Ugh. Profnjm 01:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the problem with democracy. You give them the right to vote, and they abuse it. The user has no idea what El kondor pada means, he didn't read the discussion, he knows nothing about what the hell we are even talking about, and yet, his vote is as valuable as the votes of people who have read the discussion, investigated the notability, and are on top of what we are discussing. Stubbly head, tell me what do you think about resistance movement songs and their impact on government officials? --serbiana - talk 01:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now, just for everyone who wants to hear the song, here we go, El kondor pada!!!! Enjoy --serbiana - talk 03:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to El kondor pada!
After listening, I can only say that this song can have no appeal whatsoever to anyone who does not understand the Serbian language. No wonder it has been so hard to find any mention of it in English. Balcer 03:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, everyone has their own taste in music... :-) --serbiana - talk 04:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taste should play no role in this discussion. Dcabrilo said that he didnt like it, and neither do I particularily like it, but that is irrelevant. What matters is that this song marked one period - Bombing of Serbia, and it is a notable song by a notable troup which deservs an article. BabaRera 04:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe, cool! :))) --Pockey 15:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zoe|(talk) 20:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing: this is a new article, not a recreation. Sheesh.Profnjm 20:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, it looks a lot like Pilot of invisible F-117-a(song) and El Condor pada, to me. And what can you possibly mean by my not having paid attention? And I don't believe this is a vote, I'm just trying to understand C-c-c-c's position that democracy is evil, even as he/she casts a vote. You're intentionally trying to turn my words, but it won't happen, so you might as well give up. It's pretty obvious that it's you that don't have a clue what's going on in this discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take it CCCC was talking about Soros gang of "pro-democracy" NGOs, not about real democracy...86.30.26.210
Nothing "pretty obvious" about any of this. The articles were different in structure, content, motivation of creator, intent. You know that, but you can't overcome your urge to pick at it. Just because I don't have constant edits in here as I dog the creator of the new article doesn't mean I haven't been following along closely. You've taken over Balcer's role as pedant-in-chief. Frankly, it's getting sadistic. These things become occasions for some hyper-motivated admin. to keep saying "but that's not notability," "that doesn't prove a thing." Don't you have something else to obstruct? Profnjm 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be the one making the decision on this, a non-involved admin will do the final close, and it's pretty obvious that the decision will be no consensus, but I still haven't seen a single reference proving that the song was notable, only that people know it exists. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What don't you like about [52]? It seems to cite the song as notable in the context of humor during the NATO bombing, and be by a respectable academic. AnonEMouse 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I support democracy fully, so much, that I wish to vote in the Montenegrin referendum coming up, vote in the British Parliament, vote for Quebec and Alberta separistism, and vote for cheaper gas prices. But what? I can't? You mean to tell me I can't vote in the British Parliament? Why can't I vote in the Montenegro referendum, or for the Bloque Quebecois? What, shouldn't my opinion be important as the opinions of the CEO of Exxon Mobil or Shell? Oh right, because I'm not a citizen in any of those places, or a board member of any big oil companies. This same idea applies with you, you have nothing to with Serbia, you are welcome to comment and voice your opinion but not try to push your own ideas (and unfortunately they will probably be ignored anyways, but that's life). You believe that you have the God given right to vote on anything you wish to even if it has nothing to do with you whatsoever, that's the problem with AMERICAN democracy. Why else are Americans always bombing/invading countries?

They think they have the God given right to change whatever they want, and leave everything they don't want to touch alone (ie. Sudan), but attack places oil rich Iraq. Also when quoting, please quote an entire sentence and not just a word (ie. "funny") so not to change the meaning of what I have said. And what I did say was "... but find it funny and I agree that this song must have played a key role in keeping the hopes of people in Serbia during the bombings alive, and that made a lot of people rally together." There is the reason right there.

My cousin may not be an expert (then again, neither are you), but the point is that in Serbia it is a still a popular and relevant topic, and as my cousin was a teen in those years it would have very popular for people his age, and that is the point. What he says is much more credible than what you can say, or I, because he has always lived there, he's much more familiar with things over there than I, you, or most people here anyways, with regards to Serbia, because he is in Serbia. My parents spent about a $300 every month calling relatives in Serbia, for over two months, to make sure they were alive during the bombings, and kids had nothing else but this to keep their hopes up. Sorry for sounding arrogant and angry, but this is really frustrating as I'm only trying to make the same point as almost everyone here. C-c-c-c 20:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in, guys, but can we get back to talking about the article instead of trading unrelated insults? It seems obvious to this outsider that:

Thus, could somebody from the "is notable" side please go off to gather such verification, and in the mean time we all shut up and get on with our lives? Mglg 23:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The verification of facts and verification of notability is already provided above more than once. Please read the discussion before posting. Zocky | picture popups 23:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is this user's first edit outside his user page. Zocky | picture popups 23:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The afd page says that the debate should remain open for five days, when an admin will step in and state the consensus. So? It's time. 8 days and counting. Profnjm 17:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mega Man skills and attacks

[edit]

Alright, I know this one is going to be controversial due to the gaming subculture that is creating these articles all over the place who are going to come in defense on this article, but a debate really needs to be held about these kinds of articles before there are so many of them that it's impossible to get a consensus due to the sheer amount of them on Wikipedia (everyone citing "precedent"). "Nip it in the bud" so to speak. To put it simply, Wikipedia is not a video game guide. If I am mistaken, help me understand how this article does not violate this principle. For example: Ice slasher: "Fires a burst of freezing ice that immobilizes an enemy on contact, but does little damage." This is not encyclopedic. The fact that there are other similar articles does not ipso facto establish a precedent. It could just mean we have more deleting to do. That said and without further ado, debate away. Aplomado talk 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Zero is the creator of this article. Aplomado talk 23:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. As if my comment above of "I recall only constructing it" didn't already spell it out. -ZeroTalk 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol sorry dawg Aplomado talk 01:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but just let the moderator delete the page rather than blanking it before the discussion is over. Aplomado talk 23:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki of the article is complete. Links ammended appropriately, and everythings fine. I did a cut and paste, and hadn't looked to see I blanked the page. Only took me a few minutes too.-ZeroTalk 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, si senior. Aplomado talk 00:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maloofing

[edit]

Neologism, 2 google hits (WP and MySpace). Prod'ed, tag removed by original contributor without editing or comment. Accurizer 18:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. I actually started to userfy this thing, and then changed my mind. First of all, I think Doc glasgow's right--we have no obligation to host people's bios. Second, since this user obviously edited from an IP after making his one edit from his username (to create this article), the account should not be considered active, so what's the point of having content on the userpage. Third, since all of the userfy votes are tentative and paired with delete votes, and Doc's is an emphatic don't userfy, there's no real consensus to userfy anyway. QED!!! If any non-admin wants the text I'll fish it out for you. Chick Bowen 05:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shimon sandler

[edit]

Was speedied for CSD-A7 non-notability; contains mild assertion of notability so I changed that to PROD. DePRODded without comment. Marked again for speedy. DeSpeedied without comment. Marked again for speedy. Still doesn't quite qualify for speedy, so now I'm sending it here. Technical nomination - no opinion from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 19:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I say delete because the article looks like a vanity article to me. It was created by a user named Shimonsandler who has no other contributions, and then continually improved upon by one anon i.p (12.146.67.12) who also has no other contributions. Philip Gronowski 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
--Doc ask? 19:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, likely default to merge and redirect to List of political epithets, but this requries further discussion. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate fascism

[edit]

I see your point, but the term needs definining as it is in common use. Suggest a NPOV re-write should be done. I don't know how to do it though. Punanimal 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporatism already has a well written level three section entitled "Corporatism and Fascism" - that is why I thought the redirect there was appropriate. I'd redirect to the section even, if that worked. GRBerry 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that one of the referenced sources is the article "GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCISM IS OUT OF THE CLOSET!!!!", which goes to show something. ForbiddenWord 16:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minazo

[edit]

WP:NN and vulgar — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Taking into account that he is not a reccuring character, I've redirected to Asterix and the Golden Sickle, where he is already mentioned. It is misspelled but it is not a farfetched misspelling. And redirects are cheap. --Ezeu 14:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mettalurgix

[edit]

This is an extremely minor character in the Asterix series, he exists as a plot device & visual gag in one minor story only and is never mentioned again, all the information really needed (if any is) is included on Obelix' page (their distant relationship being the ONLY thing that makes him at ALL noteworthy); also his name (page name) is misspelled (should be "Metallurgix"); finally, though not a reason to delete but rather a reason to not worry about deletion, no pages link to it Invisifan 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EZTakes Movie Downloads

[edit]

Reads like a sales pitch. Company meets neither WP:WEB nor WP:CORP. This is clearly an ad, not an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not free advertising space. Reyk YO! 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass High Tech - http://www.bizjournals.com/masshightech/stories/2006/04/24/newscolumn2.html

Video Business - http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6324452.html and http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA627692.html?text=eztakes

Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112975784661973611.html?mod=2_1189_2

PC World - http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,120343,pg,5,00.asp

Tom's Hardware - http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/06/08/commercial_video_downloads_next_big_thing_for_the_internet/index.html

FPS - http://www.fpsmagazine.com/blogarchive/2005_11_01_archive.shtml

CNET - http://news.com.com/From+oddity+to+commodity/2010-1041_3-5605033.html

Digital World - http://www.digital-world.com/

It might be worth it to spend a moment looking at the company's site -http://www.eztakes.com

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Si Brown

[edit]

Non-notable individual. A slight claim to notability is made (a pub entertainer), so AfD and not speedy. Seems to have been written by its subject, so possible userfy. BillC 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on development in Zimbabwe

[edit]
NOTE: Article has been Moved to Zimbabwe News
Another note: Article is identical in content to Article on Mutambara, which is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article on Mutambara

One person's essay - violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. It could almost be speedied as an attack article. BigDT 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 14:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borealocentrism

[edit]

This term is a non-notable Neologism. Google has two hits. BigDT 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Rodriguez

[edit]

Unverifiable, possible hoax. (User:Mangojuice's reason.) No one on Oye Mi Canto is named Julie Rodriguez or Stephanie Leonidas, and neither is someone by either name in the movie Washington Heights. Delete as hoax. Finishing off afd listing: zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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/redirect to prostitute--Ezeu 13:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Lot lizard

[edit]

Contested PROD, slang definition for a prostitute that works truck stops. I think a delete and redirect to Prostitute would be a good idea. Brian G. Crawford 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of one divided by zero

[edit]

I prodded this page which appears to be about an entirely unnotable theory. (no Google hits, no references). The author objected, so I've done him the favour of moving the debate here where it can get wider exposure. See also User talk:Bossk2 DJ Clayworth 21:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why not get your work published somewhere else? Wikipedia is NOT for original research, however briliant that research is. Please take a few minutes to read WP:OR. --BrownHairedGirl 19:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the question Brown Haired Girl. I think I may have adressed your question in the new introduction for the article129.138.2.196 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Clydesdale

[edit]

Only assertion of notability is as a casting director. Not a director -- a casting director. TheProject 20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmc international

[edit]

Non-notable, possible advertisement, possible fraud. All searches on "HMC international" lead to other companies. Searches on "HMC International" suit leads to pages about how a company of the same name was sued and closed for investment fraud. This article's company also provides several investment and financial services. Finally, the author's own user page is a link to this article, denoting some sort of personal purpose publicity. I suggest that until someone proves this organization's notability and credibility, that the article be deleted. Beltz 21:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Company has a web-page under www.hmc-international.de and the firm was never sued and closed for investment fraud. The article is an overview of the company no commercial activities are involved here, proved because even no web-link was summited.

It's not correct to delete the article HMC International. The company does excist and the article is a overview about their activities. If this article will be deleted hundereds of other should be deleted as well, for example pwc (pricewaterhouse)!!! If someone wants to delete this article it should be stated clearly which part of the article should be changed because all policies and guidline have been fullfilled.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Try RFC for this content dispute. --Ezeu 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mass-to-charge ratio

[edit]

The mass-to-charge ratio article is a primary source for mass spectrometry nomenclature and should be deleted based on No original research standards. Those portions that are not primary research should be merged with the mass spectrum article. The article arose from m/z misconception (deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M/z misconception) and in edits of the mass spectrometry page (see Talk:Mass_spectrometry#Could_the_m.2Fq_vandal_please_stop). Mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-10 mass-to-charge ratio resulted in a POV fork between mass-to-charge ratio and mass spectrum. The part of mass-to-charge ratio that did not relate to mass spectrometry was supposed to go in mass-to-charge ratio and the mass spectrometry part was supposed to go in the mass spectrum article. Unfortunately, all but one sentence of the mass-to-charge ratio article relates to mass spectrometry. The remainder either duplicates existing information in the mass spectrometry entry or constitutes original research that is a primary source for mass spectrometry nomenclature (it is referenced five times in the mass spectrometry article and the article's novel proposal to replace the accepted m/z with the new m/q notation makes this Wikipedia entry the top Google hit for 'm/q "mass spectrometer"). This notation is in conflict with the definitions that exist in the peer-reviewed literature (e.g. American Society for Mass Spectrometry [53] and IUPAC [54] - for an simplified overview see Ken Busch's Spectroscopy Magazine article: [55]), books (e.g. McLafferty ISBN 0935702253, Dass ISBN 0471330531, Siuzdak ISBN0126474710, Sparkman ISBN 0966081323, Grayson ISBN 0941901319, etc.) and on-line glossaries (e.g. The Little Encyclopedia of Mass Spectrometry [56], Pharmaceutical Mass spectrometry glossary [57], Base Peak Mass Spectrometry Glossary of Terms [58], Spectroscopy Magazine Glossary [59], Shimadzu Mass Spectrometry Glossary [60]). The POV and accuracy of the article have been repeatedly flagged and the author has each time removed these flags. The article makes many valid points and contains some novel suggestions on how to improve the existing nomenclature. However, advocating this non-standard point of view in a Wikipedia entry is counterproductive and will only serve to cloud the issue and make consensus building within the mass spectrometry community more difficult.

--Kmurray 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kmurray is not telling the truth

[edit]

He is telling the story from the perspective of a small part of the scientific community which has established its own nomenclature which is not used by the rest of the scientific community, nor is it compatible with the international standards issued about exactly this topics, the ISO 31. Here are the facts:

0) The article expresses the standard view given by ISO 31 whereas Kmurray's version is non-standard.
1) mass-to-charge ratio is a quantity that is used by a wide field of sciences, not only the mass spectrometry part. Therefore mass spectrometrists should stop hijacking this term on Wikipedia
2) even within the mass spectrometry community many people realize that the IUPAC definitions are boguous, incoherrent and not in line with ISO 31 and therefore should be abandoned.
3) Kmurray as the chairman of the IUPAC group [61] that should prepare a revised set of definitions for the IUPAC. Unfortunately he is not qualified for this job. He does not understand the basics of metrology, he continuously mixes up quantities with units, he does not know the ISO 31 document whith which his work should comply.
4) In order to cover up his dismal track record he tries to hijack and delete the mass-to-charge ratio page, because it includes definitions that are according to the wider and more basic ISO 31 standards instead of the boguous, incoherent and outdated Kmurray standards.
5) Since Kmurray is running out of arguments he is now trying to have this page deleted. He is trying to censure the internet from facts he doesn't like.
6) Everyone willing to invest the (unfortunately huge amount of) time to read the relevant documents documents will see that the page is correct and should not be deleted.
7) The reason why he wants to delete this page is because he thinks the definition 1 Th == 1 u/e is not in line with what Cooks and Rockwood wrote in their article. They wrote: 1 Th = 1 u/atomic charge. e is the internationally accepted symbol for the elementary charge which is equivalent to the atomic charge unit. Now, you be the judge.
8) Conclusion: he is looking for a straw-man reason to delete the article. The real reason is that he does not want to comply to the international standards to which the article complies.
9) Kmurray is advocating his own boguous terminology, against the internationally accepted standards of ISO 31. Please check yourself:

relevant documents:

Please note the POV push above

[edit]

Please realize the author of the unsigned argument is Kehrli. Please check his user page it will tell you everything you need to know. He is an advocate and makes some good points but he is an advocate nonetheless. The contents of his rant have nothing to do with if the article should be deleted. They have to do with an argument to change an accepted notation system (that happens to be old, antiquated, in desparate need of improvement and largely incompatible with ISO 31) to something new and better. However this change has not happened yet. Someday it will and then we will write an article about it. As Kehrli points out the nomination for deletion was made by the head of the relevant IUPAC commitee. Whatever IUPAC says is standard no matter how we may disagree. --Nick Y. 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nick, my nomenclature is in line with IUPAC green book, whereas yours is not. Kehrli

Please note the POV push above

[edit]
  1. Please realize the author of the above POV is advocating a minority view of a small and irrelevant IUPAC project group [62] over the well established ISO 31 standard.
  2. Please note that the nomenclature of this small and irrelevant IUPAC project group [63] is only made for mass spectrometry of analytical chemists, not for the the rest of the scientific community that uses mass-to-charge ratios.
  3. Please note that the opinion of this small and irrelevant IUPAC project group [64] does not even comply with the more important IUPAC green book of the same organization.
  4. Please note that the opinion of this small and irrelevant IUPAC project group [65] does also not comply with the more fundamental and important IUPAP red book.
  5. Please note that I agreed with Nick that even though his nomenclature is restricted to mass spectrometry only, both standards should be represented. - Now he infamously breaks this agreement and voted to delete the article presenting the nomenclature according to the ISO 31 standard, the IUPAC green book and the IUPAP red book.
Kehrli

voting

[edit]
--Nick Y. 21:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, the reason why there is much redundancy is that you stole my content and copied it to the mass spectrum page. Therefore, please remove all discussions about mass-to-charge ratio from the mass spectra article and make references to the mass-to-charge ratio article instead. Kehrli 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, in the mean time there are many more differences since I worked a lot on the mass-to-charge ratio page. Your statement that there is complete redundance except for one scentence is no longer true. Kehrli 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No, there is no question about the accuracy and POV of this article. It represents the nomenclature as given by the internationallly accepted ISO 31 standards, whereas Nick and Kmurray are pushing for a minority opinion only shared by some people (not all) in the mass spectrometry community. Kehrli 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added some comments from the other side. Kehrli 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment most of mass-to-charge ratio was copied from mass spectrometry and some of it was written by me.--Nick Y. 16:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also compelled that some scientists want to delete the ISO 31 compatible nomenclature just in order to replace it with a version that is outdated and boguous. I agree that there is space for different units. There was an agreement until Kmurray put this AFD: ISO 31 compliant version is on mass-to-charge ratio and the non-compliant version is on mass spectra. Therefore we need to keep the article. Otherwise I will have to start revising the mass spectra article in order to make it ISO 31 compliant. Kehrli 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point. kcal/mol is outdated. We still use them. Wikipedia is not the place to debate which units are correct. We follow what people use. Wikipedia is certainly not the place to argue that some units are boguous. Stop it. I am not just getting at you. The other side is just as bad. Just learn and accept what Wikipedia is about. There is no need to think that you "have to start revising" anything. --Bduke 12:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke, you miss the point. kcal/mol may still be used and has its place on Wikipedia, but kJ/mol should not be deleted, because (i) some people use kJ/mol, (ii) kJ/mol is the ISO 31 compliant unit. Therefore wee need both. And you are now voting for just keeping kcal/mol. Kehrli 06:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kherli does not get your point. I have tried to explain this to him. I abandoned the article because he does not get this point. As a scientist unfamilar with this particular area I should infom you that your analogy is totally correct. What is represented on this page is not a standard notation. Please take a look at Kehrli's user page to understand his argument for change to this new system to make it more in line with other standards. The AfD is based on redundancy. The fact that it is advocacy of a new unit system is just a bonus.--Nick Y. 16:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I am not advocating a new unit system, I am defenting what is the ISO 31 standard which is the most important standard in this field. You are advocating a minority view to replace the majority standard. That is what is happening here. Kehrli 06:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke, nobody is arguing about standards. It is just about which standard to use, e.g if both standards should be represented or just one. There are two standards in place, the wider ISO 31 and the very narrow (mass spectromeytry only) IUPAC yellow book standard, which is not in line with the ISO 31 standard. You are now voting for the deletion of the widely accepted terms that comply with the ISO 31 standard and instead want to keep the page that advocates the narrow standard that is only used by mass spectrometrists and is not used by the rest of the scientific community. My point is: IUPAC has established a non-compliant standard, which is ok, but we still need to keep the wider ISO 31 standard and therefore we should not delete the article. Kehrli 06:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 07:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SynthCity.net

[edit]

As a new webzine, this obviously fails WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a web directory or a place to advertise new websites.
Deprodded (by an IP address, without any attempt to explain why it should be kept, of course), so it's over to AfD. — Haeleth Talk 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electrobix

[edit]

This is a term used only by the Emin society, I see no reason it should not be merged with that entry. The other pages listed below are the same - only the last one has interesting info, IMHO. To boost, they are of course all POV'ed towards the Emins (too much work to start if consensus is to merge). Unless this is a really big "society" I do not see why we should have pages on their every idea...

Complete list:

Lundse 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. -Doc ask? 23:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Diamond series

[edit]

Simply a list of certain videotapes that are no longer available in these editions. Not a very notable list. IrishGuy 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eli Poulin

[edit]

non notable and vanity. The main author of the article is Elipoulin. A Vanity prod was placed on the 7th and removed without comment by Elipoulin on the 8th. That pretty much sums it up. IrishGuy 21:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I am trying to do is edit my music bio. Please and thank you, Eli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elipoulin (talk • contribs)

Not everyone in the world gets an entry in Wikipedia. That is the point. This is vanity. It belongs on your user page, not in an article. IrishGuy 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can I post about my music then? Im not streching the truth by any means. I am very careful about what I say, what can I put? Please dont delete this, Im for real! This isnt vanity, this is how I started out and what I am currently doing for music.

Is is vanity. You are writing about yourself. It belongs on your user page, not as an article. IrishGuy 22:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How am I able to edit my user page? I am pretty green, I would appreciate your help. How do other bands get on here and they arent falling under the catagory of vanity? Like U2 or REM?

U2 and REM didn't write their own articles. Additionally, their fame, record sales, etc. have allowed them to meet the notability and verifiability standards of Wikipedia. As for your user page, when you log in you will see a toolbar on the top right of the screen. Click on your username and then edit that page. If you have any questions/problems, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Please don't take any of this personally. It isn't meant as an attack on you. IrishGuy 23:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. -Doc ask? 23:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weenis

[edit]

Hoax/neologism. Previously deleted as hoax; this article is not an exact duplication of the original content, but has expanded on the same basic premise. Kafziel 21:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no there aren't, and no it isn't. Kafziel 22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word began as a neologism. If you read the article it includes many neologisms which have articles on wikipedia including gay and blog. I also reference http://folk.uio.no/iroggen/Root_knowledge.html which I gleaned from that same neologism wiki article.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the word "neologism" is more than 200 years old. Neither "gay" nor "blog" were neologisms when their articles were created on Wikipedia. "Weenis" didn't begin as a neologism - it is a neologism. Kafziel 22:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"don't delete:::Wow. The wiki-elitism of this discussion just keeps increasing. Oh I'm sorry...wiki-elitism...that would be neologism. The word "weenis" has been around for many years now and was not simply coined by me after sticking gum to the underside of a desk. While it is a neologism, it still has the potential to become more. It is comparitively young as compared to others and I feel that you high-and-mighty weilders of the delete function are acting a bit unfairly. This article is not vandalism, it's an early sign of a future term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.108.144 (talk • contribs)

PS- do these endless deletion arguments and rule-spouting remind anyone else of Stoppardian absurdism? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern playing question games... Devisch 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. -Doc ask? 22:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cock block

[edit]

Slang definition. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus, and there has been no significant improvement since. This has been transwikied to Wiktionary. There's nothing in this article beyond stating what cock blocking is, regardless of the number of sentences there are. WP:WINAD. Brian G. Crawford 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. -Doc ask? 22:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See before you die

[edit]

Spam. Kafziel 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are notability standards. Kafziel 04:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think no one can see your history of contributions (or lack thereof)? Please do not use sockpuppet IP addresses to try to influence the AfD process. Kafziel 16:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still spam. Not only was it written as an advertisement, it also links to a commercial website. It does not meet any of the criteria specified in the notability guidelines mentioned by Stifle, so there's no need for it to have an article at all. Kafziel 23:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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: Speedily deleted as nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 07:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinking feeling

[edit]

At best, a dicdef, at worst, nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Unverifiable - it has had long enough to show otherwise. None of the keep votes appeared to overcome this objection (few actually tried) -Doc ask? 22:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longest streets in London

[edit]

A map does not publish lengths, so analysing it to find them is OR in my view (but debatable), as it depends on the map chosen and the method of measuring. Further analysis to create an ordered list is more clear OR, though. Since the last Afd when references were requested, very few have found since, but the article occaisionly gets reverted as "trivially verifiable", where the main reference is the word "(map)" - not a WP:RS to me! Given the nature of the article, and the problems above, I can not see how it can be expanded without much original reasearch, so am putting it up for deletion. MartinRe 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Afd, (Feb 2, 2006) which was closed as 'no consensus' can be seen here.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. AndyZ 21:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of look-alike porn stars

[edit]

Tagged for AfD by an anon. I'm finishing the process. Looks like original research and wishful thinking. Maybe these women look similar to someone with beer goggles on, but not me. Brian G. Crawford 22:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (I was the one who originally ((prod)) tagged this.) This list is hardly notable and it isn't information that couldn't be added to the pages of the porn stars themselves. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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/redirect to Chappelle's Show. --Ezeu 13:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Nasty

[edit]

Unimportant fictional character. The Player Hater's Ball is already covered in Chappelle's Show. Brian G. Crawford 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 07:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magda Sales

[edit]

Unverifiable. Can't find on IMDB. The wikilink to the director links to a billiards player. Creator has history of creating unverifiable articles -- see his talk page. The JPS talk to me 22:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 07:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Herman

[edit]

text has no relevance, and it was created as a personal CV; the text does not indicate any office this "politician" held, and only points out to a minor position at a local newspaper of minor circulation. it is self-advertising Dahn 22:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. -Doc ask? 22:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spatula Day

[edit]

Hoax/non-notable. Less than 150 google hits, many of which are mirrors of this article. Can't be verified outside original research. Kafziel 22:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 07:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Duel

[edit]

While the article was flagged for merging, I've run over the article and find that there is nothing in the article that can be merged into the article Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith either because the information is already there or is POV and cannot be cited by sources. The Filmaker 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. -Doc ask? 22:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Empire

[edit]

nn website, 71 unique Google hits, no alexa ranking. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent that the article is being converted from the website article to an anime article. Your reasoning for its deletion as a website article is justified, however that is already being worked on. Thanks. Despain 23:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 07:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The f.i.d.s

[edit]

Originally tagged for speedy deletion, the reason given was that it was a copy of the user's userpage. This is not criteria for speedy deletion: it is quite acceptable to write an article in user space first before transferring it across to main space. Question is, is this band really all that notable? Francs2000 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Mile Road System (Detroit). -Doc ask? 22:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 mile rd Detroit

[edit]

Notability; lots of POV, Original research. User left a message on my talk page complaining that I speedied his articles, so listing here for transparency. The JPS talk to me 23:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 07:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastside Chedda Boyz

[edit]

Notability/verifiability; lots of POV, Original research. User left a message on my talk page complaining that I speedied his articles, so listing here for transparency. The JPS talk to me 23:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of farms in Oppland

[edit]

I have nominated the following four articles for deletion:

as they appear to be an indiscriminate collection of information (which Wikipedia is not) and possibly including copies of primary sources. Stifle (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Does not include copies of primary sources—a quick review of the link in articles will reveal this to the reviewer. Williamborg 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The lists are public information in Norway. It is not copyvio in any sense. The numbers in front of the names are gardsnumber which is a term used in norway to uniquely identify a farm within a local area. In addition to gardsumber there are bruksnummer in use. Those numbers refers to smaller areas or farms within a larger area. The lists are not temporal in nature as the numbering has been in place for a very long time. The numbering are also in use on detail maps, whats known as økonomisk kartverk. Such lists has a direct analogy in lists of road numbers in an area.
The lists are useful for those who writes articles about local history as it is easy to check if the farm has been given a description or not. In Norway it is very common to have the farms described in collective works about a municipality. Where I come from we have Gardssoge for Sør-Aurdal (Farm history of Sør-Aurdal) and similar books are available for most of the municipalities.
Norwegian farms are very often very old. It is not uncommon that farms are noted in historic sources like Snorre. Still, it is not wise to describe every farm in Wikipedia. There are also the situation where people wants to use a description of an old farm as a reason for writing genealogical articles about their own family. This could create a lot of unwanted vanity articles, yet this isn't a very good argument for deletion of those lists.
It seems like the Norwegians casting votes are familiar with this as most of them votes for keep.
— John Erling Blad (no) 14:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource might be a more suitable home for entries like these. What I'm saying isn't that this is useless, just that this isn't the best place for it. Dr Zak 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one who sees the lovely (and useful) irony of the comment, “WP is not a database.”? If it is anything, Wikipedia is MOST CERTAINLY a database... The Wiki software is a server-side script, with the content stored on a server in a relational database. That’s precisely what makes Wikipedia so useful and powerful…
This insight is most instructive… Folks are hung up thinking about Wikipedia as if it were a classical encyclopedia… It is most certainly NOT a classical encyclopedia… once we agree on that we can think about what it actually is!
Our basis for deciding what should be allowed as a list is bizarre. We tell the reader what a list in not (Wikipedia is not). Decision processes based on negativity are always weak and open to debate.
It is time for a logical and systematic statement of what warrants being placed on a list. Here are my quick thoughts on a systematic set to rules for a list based on the characteristics of an encyclopedia:
  • … “comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge” …“an encyclopedia treats each subject in more depth and convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject”… Since the use of the encyclopedia is research, the primary purpose of a list is to facilitate research. THEREFORE A LIST may cover any branch of knowledge, but must be arguably relevant (i.e., useful for some form of research):
  • “General encyclopedias often contain … as well as embedded dictionaries and gazetteers”… a gazetteer is a “geographical dictionary, an important reference for information about places and place-names”… THEREFORE A LIST may cover gazetteer information if it provides important reference information about places and place-names. (Note: this does raise a question whether we shouldn’t create a sister Wiki project… a Wikigazetter.)
  • “Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain.” THEREFORE A LIST should convey important accumulated knowledge for an identifiable subject domain.
  • … “systematic method of organization is essential to making an encyclopedia usable as a work of reference.” THEREFORE A LIST should logically enter into the Wiki list structure as a head set or subset… the proposor of a new list has the responsibility for proposing a logical structure under which a list falls in the current scheme of lists.
  • “As modern multimedia and the information age have evolved, they have had an ever-increasing effect on the collection, verification, summation, and presentation of information of all kinds.”… THEREFORE A LIST may be proposed if it is a logical collection or summation of information… the logic must be clear to the casual reader.
We need to get beyond… well I think so… well I don’t think so… well, I still think so… well I still don’t think so… Anyone have comments/thoughts on my thoughts on how to set up systematic criteria so our discussion is more rational? UmptanumRedux 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Added a discussion on criteria to the What Wikipedia is not talk page.UmptanumRedux 17:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modisti

[edit]

Article has been created five times and deleted four times (one time blank, one time db-bio, and twice recreating deleted content) [66]. If I remember correctly, the previous content came directly from the Web site. This time the article was created with different text which appears to be original. Since it's obvious that the deletion is contested by the creator (User:Modisti) and I don't believe it meets WP:WEB, I'm bringing the article here for discussion. A search for modisti.com [67] returns 81 unique hits, and I can't find substantial references to the site which aren't essentially copies of content from their site. And finally, there is no substantial notability asserted in the article. ScottW 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my opinion, the current article is different enough from the previously deleted material to avoid speedy deletion under G4. ScottW 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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