< August 14	August 16 >

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

The result was delete. DS 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

I think this is a perfect example of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Editor88 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 23:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no google references. Michael Greiner 23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete author even admits it's obscure.--Nebular110 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• So wait, "shrange" = "http://www."? That's almost BJAODN-worthy as a WTF-moment. humblefool® 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable. Rohirok 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A joke. <KF> 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is no hoax. I attend a west coast university and this term is common usage there. Tehkweeyan

  Note: This user has no other edits. Editor88 02:43, 16 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subject has article at other wikimedia site and zero data attached here Ben iarwain 00:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can be nothing more than a dictionary defintion. Not verified. Rohirok 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary -- Deville (Talk) 02:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR more suited to urbandictionary.com than wiktionary. Google seems to indicate more than one approach to use of the phrase. --Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung reasoning. feydey 08:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR, unenclyclopedic. HighInBC 12:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per Deville. Cynical 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Michael 19:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki — to wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Martinp23 20:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is so sad, but it looks like I'm going to have to say d3l3t3. Yours sideways, Cyde Weys 02:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlinked to neologism. Why bother transwiki when nothing actually refers to it? StuffOfInterest 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see above. will381796 05:55, 19 August 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 was Speedy keep. SynergeticMaggot 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A copyrighted term about a test you send for in the mail to learn about, and then they send you a certification. It's some pseudoscience that says you can tell a person's characteristics by their handwriting. Just see the page and their site. I don't think this is notable, and the article is certainly POV mboverload@ 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is impossible to copyright just one word. That organization is just one organization, and this article is not about that organization. If it's a pseudoscience, that's not a reason to delete it. Michael Hardy 00:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Well-known pseudoscience with a venerable history. The term is a perfectly good dictionary word: AHD says "NOUN: The study of handwriting, especially when employed as a means of analyzing character."[1] Heck, there could even be something in it, although I vaguely seem to recall studies showing that different graphologists' analysis of the same handwriting samples didn't yield consistent results. All articles of this kind need constant watching for the insertion of promotional material and links and for point-of-view pushing; this one could probably benefit from some careful attention, but it doesn't even look particularly bad. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) P. S. Britannica thinks it's worthy of an article[2]; so does Encarta[3]. I said "venerable," didn't I? How about a 1919 book on "Graphology and the Psychology of Handwriting?" [4] Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a Google Scholar search yields 1400 hits, quite a lot for a Scholar search. You can judge for yourself what's the balance of research fur it and research agin' it... but its definitely a serious topic of serious research. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the 1440 makes it notiable. I also don't believe the copywright argument is valid in this case. --Edgelord 01:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's a real topic, even if it may be a pseudoscience -- Whpq 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wasn't using the fact that it was copyrighted to make a case to delete it. --mboverload@ 01:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If that is the case why then was it part of your opening sentence? --Edgelord 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly because xe was thinking about trademarks, not copyright, and about Graphoanalysis, not Graphology. I wonder whether the nominator nominated the article that xe intended to nominate. Uncle G 01:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I was asking the nominator why he stated the term being copyrighted in the first sentence if that was not being used as a reason to delete the article. I also believe that the correct artilce was nominated because bith the nominator and one of the people voting keep stated that it was about studying handwriting.
• Speedy keep. Graphology is one of the most notable forms of pseudoscience in the modern world. This is like nominating Scientology for deletion. Just make it less messy, source it, and keep it free of the spam and unscientific claims it will surely attract. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, this is a real pseudoscience that has successfully slithered its way into American courtrooms a few times. The independent report on the Killian memos discusses its significance in the handwriting field. Gazpacho 01:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per others -- Deville (Talk) 03:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, the word is a notable pseudoscience term and the article just needs to be sourced and referenced. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep... Popular pseudosciences are notable unless you really want to delete Dianetics, Rolfing and Chiromancy too. wikipediatrix 03:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Apparently well referenced, and a well-known term. More references never hurt, though LinaMishima 04:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's pseudoscience. It's crap. The article needs to indicate that. But it's a real pseudoscience, better known than many, and worthy of entry. Travislangley 05:18, 15 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This webcomic was originally nominated and deleted last year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starsomething and can be found on the comic genesis free web host, here. The reasons for this nomination are the same as the original, it is not a notable website, there are no respectable third party stories relating to this subject. The comic's authors have gone onto arguably more notable projects since this, but they don't have the midas touch. Just as we don't have an article on Moby's high school band, we shouldn't have an article on this random website. - Hahnchen 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. However, if the authors have gone onto really notable projects and have an article, merge and redirect there. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See above. --Planetary 01:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Above. Actually, This article was nominated for deletion in last year. Daniel's page ☎ 02:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, webcomic, deleted before. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with article about the authors. Cynical 14:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn, or merge per cynical if the authors are clearly notable AdamBiswanger1 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 19:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — and merge per above Martinp23 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and mention it on the RPG World and Adventurers! author's pages. I've read it - there's not much there. humblefool® 01:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They didn't go on to notable projects. They came from Adventurers! and RPG World, for pete's sake. These are both hugely popular webcomics. They are at the level, and have been around long enough, that they don't need to put themselves on rating lists or similar. Starsomething was visited by large chunks of both their fanbases.--Mobius Soul 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My apologies for confusing them. They were a sideproject running alongside the arguably more notable comics, but my point still stands, they do not have the Midas touch. - Hahnchen 14:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable through reliable sources and WP:NOT an internet guide. As far as being associated with the "hugely popular" webcomics Adventurers! and RPG World goes, is there a reliable source that suggests these webcomics are "hugely popular"? They appear to have the hugely not very popular Alexa rankings of 291,620 [5] and 308,925 [6] respectively. -- Dragonfiend 04:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 04:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep per Mobius Soul. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. StuffOfInterest 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:04, 18 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another webcomic, found here. Using a google search to look for "emerald winter", the best source I could come up with was a review on a podcast[7]. It's Alexa rank is 1.2 million for those interested. - Hahnchen 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable comicruft. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Daniel's page ☎ 02:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable webcomic. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 03:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Cruft death to webcomics. SynergeticMaggot 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — nn Martinp23 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - low Alexa ranking is not a good enough reason to delete. Cynical 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator's "the best source I could come up with" is a reference to the article having no reliable sources and the nominator being unable to find any. Our content policies require that articles be based on reliable, third-party sources. -- Dragonfiend 03:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are just so many webcomics out there, and I don't see how this one is notable in the least. While Alexa ranking isnt the be-all end-all, it certainly does not bode in the comic's favor. Do you have any reason for voting keep other than in defiance of the use of the Alexa ranking? AdamBiswanger1 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insufficiently notable. --Satori Son 16:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn with no sources. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and unverifiable will381796 05:57, 19 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second nomination for this article, it was previously deleted here, and I pretty much agree with the original nomination. A non notable webcomic which does not pass WP:WEB. Its Alexa rank is 580,000. - Hahnchen 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and block recreation as per nom. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, good comic, but it's only marginally notable and only within the Halo community. Fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 03:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per above. SynergeticMaggot 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete — CSD G4 Martinp23 12:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G4 Cynical 14:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom--G4 seems a little like censorship sometimes in that it calls for deletion without a thought as to what the article says. AdamBiswanger1 14:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nominator but not G4 unless it is actual recreation Yuckfoo 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• No Opinion But id like to point out that you've got 8-bit theater (also a webcomic) on here... Held in much esteem by Final Fantasy fans, much as Halobabies is held in esteem for Halo fans... yet this one is up for deletion and the other is not? Just making a point, ive no opinion on this matter. Kupofather 15:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block recreation. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:08, 18 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic fan fiction webcomic found on the free web host Smack Jeeves, here. Although the free web host Smack Jeeves claims to host over 2000 websites on its article, the entire domain only manages a paltry Alexa rank of 120,000 of which this comic is the most popular. Even the most popular website on Smack Jeeves only manages to return 30 Google hits for "Totally Kotor". I think I'm going to have to nominate the host next. But that's for later, what's certain is that this is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable website. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn webcomic. feydey 08:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Jonnymoblin 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Alexa rankings are nonsense, 30 Google links is fine. Cynical 14:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Remember WP:WEB, also. AdamBiswanger1 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 15:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per nom Martinp23 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. The article fails our WP:WEB guidelines miserably. RFerreira 21:55, 18 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although giving your webcomic a transgendered theme is a sure fire way to ensure its success, it fails here. Take a look at the webcomic here, it's 40 google links here and lack of Alexa rank here. - Hahnchen 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable webcomic about a mishmash of game universes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 40 Google links is fine, Alexa rankings are unreliable nonsense (they only take into account the activities of those with the Alexa Toolbar spyware installed). Cynical 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Only 40 Google hits is not fine. My Uncle Ned's fishing blog gets more than that. wikipediatrix 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom and not meeting any WP standards. Wickethewok 15:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insufficiently notable. --Satori Son 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per nom Martinp23 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete when it becomes notable, it should have an article - but it's not there yet. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per above will381796 05:58, 19 August 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 was moved to Talk space and speedy delete the leftover redirect. Kimchi.sg 06:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do with this, maybe move it to Talk:Stargate SG-1: The Alliance? TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good. Super King 00:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I assume it's pending cleanup items on the article, so I'd say Merge to Talk:Stargate SG-1: The Alliance. Fan-1967 01:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you guys undestand how this page came about. Every page in the Stargate project has this template (at the bottom of my post). Contained within this template, as you can see is a feature to create to-do-list subpages for the talk pages. It was a system the project desgined to create to do lists for articles. Either delete this feature or keep it, but don't delete this one page without adressing the issue. Also, this should be on MfD not AfD. Tobyk777 01:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((Stargateproject))

• Support Oppose - This was created in the wrong area - The todo should be off the talk page. Talk:Stargate SG-1: The Alliance/to do. I created this page and copied over the todo list. After Review - However, it looks like the template used by Stargate puts the talk page off the article and not off the talk. Since this is how they have set it up, I don't see it is any interest to make them change all the articles under this project. Such an effort would be huge. Morphh 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close This has been moved to the talk space now, so this AfD isn't required. The template looks like it's creating in the talk space to me, and that part of it hasn't been edited since this AfD started, so I'm a little confused as to how this page was created. It should have been a talk page from the start. --Tango 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Messed up nomination per Tango. Tobyk777 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone db-author it if its merged already. SynergeticMaggot 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep so Project can fix it. - LA @ 05:31, 15 August 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 was delete. 1ne 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a vanity page, quite possibly unverifiable, and an advertisement (since it prominently links to sites that earn money from ads and from the sale of the "energy-related" articles they promote). Looks like a non-notable forum for fringe technologies, and also like someone's trying to make a point. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from PESWiki Founder The page was posted by the suggestion of User:Meco who posted the invitation to create such a page on User_talk:sterlingda's talk page on 25 May 2006.

The argument that the site earns money from ads and therefore is unworthy of a link is not balanced inasmuch as most sites on the internet (and which are linked from Wikipedia) are supported at least in part by ads.

The argument of "unverifiable" is also irrelevant inasmuch as many of the technology feature pages most often include documentation of just what is or is not validated on a given technology. Indeed, the New Energy Congress, which is hosted at PESWiki.com was founded with the purpose of documenting technologies and rating them based on a set of criteria, one of the ten criteria being "credibility of evidence."

The site has been built over two years, through the collaborative effort of many people, and contains many well-developed articles akin to Wikipedia.

The argument that the site is merely a "non-notable forum", that is likewise groundless, inasmuch as the ratio of viewers to posters is highly disproportionate. Most of the traffic comes from viewers, and most of the changes are made by a few individuals who are careful about accuracy and credibility. Very little dialogue, or "forum" activity takes place on the site.

As for "fringe technologies," we prefer to use the terminology of "cutting-edge," and yes, that is our specialty -- to push the envelope. We spend most of our effort outside of the mainstream box. That is why the site was created, rather than just populating energy-related content at WikiPedia. Such content was not welcome here, so we created that site, and it has been a tremendous success. Many professionals from a wide berth of disciplines visit the site and refer to it often.

Of course we're trying to make a point. Isn't that the point of any written document? Maybe I'm missing some nuance of some Wikipedia jargon. Whatever.

Finally, let me say that one thing I do not miss at all about Wikipedia (rarely visiting here for the purpose of posting), which is nearly completely absent at PESWiki, is this sort of mindless quibbling about content that is obviously meritorious to most observers -- especially those who know what they are talking about on the subject. Mr. Pablo-flores is able to post a notice of putting the page up for deletion, and he has obviously spent just a minute or two looking at the site, while there are several individuals contributing to PESWiki many hours a day, day after day, week after week, and now two years total, making it a very significant work -- a point completely lost on Mr. Pablo-flores. I don't mean disrespect to him in staying that, I'm just criticizing the culture here at Wikipedia which is so knee-jerk busy-bodyish, that productivity of serious contributors is wasted on responding to such silly nonsense.

I'm so glad I have a place mostly absent of such mindlessness over at PESWiki, where we can post unfettered, for the most part, limited only by a quest for truth, and hardly ever having to be bogged down by politics of groundless and unnecessary interactions such as this.

I'm the "Jimbo Wales" of PESWiki, and am treated with respect there, and I try to treat others who contribute with the same respect. Yet here at Wikipedia, I'm treated like an imbecile. Do you think that that is inviting to good content contributions? Hardly. I spend every waking hour, nearly, focused on cutting-edge energy technology, surveying the field, reporting, writing, compiling, etc. Yet Mr. Pablo-flores treats my posting with about as much respect as if it had come from some punk just flinging some information on the site for a kick. Man I don't miss Wikipedia!

If the inventor of a technology comes to PESWiki and posts content, we rejoice. We don't call it "self-promotion." Sheesh, if Tesla were alive, and dared post something about himself at Wikipedia, you would ban the page because of "self-promotion." Who better to compose an article than the subject of the article? Come on folks. When are you going to get a clue? Sterlingda 06:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different Wikis have different purposes. The purpose of this Wiki is to be an Encyclopaedia - so non-encyclopaedic content is excluded, just as words you personally made up at excluded at the Wikitionary. Perhaps you're looking for Wiki - uh - what does Wikisource do? WilyD 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:WEB. Sorry. The most significant inboudn link seems to be a Digg ... and a Wikipedia article. [8] --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cutting edge and painful to read. --Musaabdulrashid 08:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, no references, no sources for claims like "an authoritative source" and the promotion of corporate sites. feydey 08:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - fails WP:WEB, not notable enough, not enough links in, article reads like an ad and needs serious wikification. --Draicone ^(talk) 09:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Strong KEEP!!! - SUCCEEDS WP:WEB, notable enough, enough links to validate technologies outlined, article reads like normal news ezines and needs to be maintained. IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT A LOT OF THE POSTS REQUESTING DELETION ARE FROM THE SAME OR SIMILAR IP ADDRESSES...NICE TRY. --altenergy ^(talk) 07:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is what I meant by making a point:

Many of the topics are on subjects that Allan was not able to post at Wikipedia when he attempted to do so back in 2003. At the time, such content was considered too controversial, or not sufficiently established scientifically. Several of these topics now have significant Wikipedia entries as well. (emphasis mine)

The article has other problems, already outlined above, which cannot be solved by removing those sentences.

Yes, Mr. Allan, Wikipedia is picky and yes, some of us do quibble about content. Our content (I speak of us as part of the community, which you aren't and don't want to be, as per your own admission) is subject to policies. You're free to have other policies in your site.

I won't discuss the quality or scientific validation of the content, or the work put into it by its contributors. That's not the point of this AfD. The point is that the website is not notable (see above), and the article makes claims that are not verified outside of it. Wikipedia is not a source of information; ideally, it's a repository of already reviewed, verified information.

Of course many sites employ advertising. But your site has a "Top 10", for example, that is a directory of commercial websites selling controversial technologies (cold fusion for home theaters, energy extraction from the vacuum, etc.). The Wikipedia article doesn't add to our knowledge of these, it merely increases your visibility. You have to be visible (notable) before you have an article in Wikipedia.

Your response only reinforces the idea that you're trying to make a point. Wikipedia is not "on the quest for truth". There are other places for that. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per nom. Non-notatable. Jefffire 12:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as it references no reliable sources. WilyD 12:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep digg is a far more reliable measure of notability than Alexa. Cynical 14:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, site does not meet WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 15:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable?

In Response to those who say the article should be deleted because PESWiki is non-notable. . .

According to Google, which has a very strong algorithm for page ranking, PESWiki consistently pull up high, often coming in the top three for specific companies, inventors, and technologies for which PESWiki has a feature page; often coming up even higher than Wikipedia for certain topics. This indicates that according to Google, which bases its algorithm largely on incoming links and traffic, PESWiki is a highly significant site, on a par with or even surpassing Wikipedia when it comes to PESWiki's coverage of cutting-edge energy technologies. If that is not significant, then neither is Wikipedia significant.

Sample topics that come up higher in Google for PESWiki than for Wikipedia:

(Commented out, irrelevant to discussion)

References:

• http://Google.com
• http://googlehigh.com - by PES Network, gives reason for its high returns at Google; no gimmick, just consistently good page layout that is rewarded by Google for reasons of honesty.

Sterlingda 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Google is not helpful in establishing notability of a website. People here are sometimes impressed by high Alexa Rankings, which Peswiki is rated at 59,969 - because that measures the traffic - i.e. how much the website is used, not just how good it is at scamming google. Mayhaps you should take a gander at WP:WEB to see what Wikipedia is really looking for. WilyD 13:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As documented at http://googlehigh.com, PESWiki's page rankings are not due to short-term tricks or gimmicks, but are due to quality and presentation of content. These high ratings are a consistent feature of PES Network sites, and do not come and go with the latest trick. An Alexa rating in the region of 59,000 is quite respectable for a niche-topic site as PESWiki is. Sterlingda 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An Alexa ranking of 60 000 is not atrocious, but it's hardly a criterion for inclusion - it just means a site may be able to establish itself as encyclopaedic (which this has not). WilyD 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wookieepedia can have an entry and not PESWiki? WTF?!?! 134.193.168.251 14:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wookieepedia does have a reference with the Scifi article - that's not to say it'd pass AfD is nom'd. WilyD 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• PESWiki Has a few references also (in a few articles). And there has been a systematic push to keep the site out (defenders of "truth" not fact). Sad to see the Wikipediblog do this. AfD use to be alot better a few years ago (when it was VfD), but the bias is rampant now in Wikpediblog ... 134.193.168.251 14:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On this point you would be mistaken - the article does not cite any reliable sources. WilyD 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD is not a competition to see if PESWiki is better than Wikipedia or any other site. Please read the policies that have been pointed out to you and try to understand what this is about. And please move long replies to the talk page (AfD main pages are for votes and short comments only).

    You might like to read up on Google bombing to understand what's happening with your Google ratings.

    I've removed your comments about the list of wikis, not pertaining to this process. Tu quoque?

    BTW, you can nominate the Wookieepedia article for deletion if you feel it doesn't deserve a place in Wikipedia. If you simply dislike Wikipedia, either challenge its policies in the proper places or leave. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Google bombing is what wikipedia does. That is why in the Manual of style that Wikipedia recommends that 'all links in an article are internal wikilinks. Inaddition Many Wikipedian don't follow the WP policies or twist them to support thier point.

      BTW, Wookieepedia meets these condition that this article is criticized for ... but thye voters here twist the rules how they like .... 134.193.168.251 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wookieepedia does have a single reliable-ish source in it - however, articles that haven't been considered for deletion really offer no precendence at all - there's no real reason to believe Wookieepedia would survive AfD - things do get through the cracks. WilyD 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PD - Sorry, I didn't pay attention and skipped over the link to googlehigh. You actually wrote a book on how to trick Google to get high ranks, and you're advertising it here! —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not "advertising" it, I'm referencing it as a documentation of the fact that honesty is the best policy when it comes to ranking well in Google. You have missed the point of the "book". There are no "tricks" it has completely to do with good content and placement that makes sense and flows well for readers. Sterlingda 16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also note a similar debacle going on at List of energy topics. wikipediatrix 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as spam and not meeting WP:WEB. Wickethewok 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete? No, Nuke it. It fails WP:WEB, WP:RS (were are the independent third party sources?), WP:SPAM (reads like an advert), WP:NOT(take your pick of violations there...soapbox, hosting, etc), WP:POINT (Per the rant above), WP:AUTO/WP:VANITY(Per the rant above) ...and the holy trinity: WP:NPOV (article is far from a neutral pov), WP:OR (No independent sources?), and WP:V (Can't verify any of this information). I haven't seen this many violations on just one article in a long time. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, violations of WP:NPOV aren't grounds for deletion of articles - but your other criteria are likely enough to support a deletion action anyhow. WilyD 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, you are correct. I was just using it because I used the other two and there is that statement that the three rules should not be applied seperately, or it could be that I only am running on two hours of unrestful sleep. Forgive my ramblings --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to step on your toes just for going a little overboard with good pedagogical intent. WilyD 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries WilyD. You are one user that I actually concider a friendly face...typeset...whatever :P --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)}
• Delete — Fails WP:WEB Martinp23 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:WEB and others. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'? abassign (ITALY),No! It goes maintained link, is a much optimal reference for the study of energies alternatives. Is thery userful. It is much profit for the job of scouting on energetic technologies alternatives.
• I find PESWiki quite useful. I go to it almost every day. There is much useful information here. Hoss —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.184.45 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 August 2006.
  • The front door of my house is very useful. I use it several times per day. It does not warrant an encyclopaedia article. The criteria for inclusion here are not whether individual editors find the subjects of articles useful. The various Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines have been linked to above. Please provide an argument that is based upon them. Uncle G 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:WEB, WP:OR, WP:Verfiability. Even this AfD discussion has been rendered into Spam. Rohirok 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Or purge links to it from Wikipedia articles [9] A third option is to combine it with an article covering it, Sterling Allen's other site http://freeenergynews.com, http://zpenergy.com and http://www.keelynet.com/ Hackwrench 06:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links are a different matter. I wouldn't link to PESWiki.com from each and every article, but the site certainly is useful as an annotated directory of fringe cutting-edge technology, for those who want to get at that. External websites linked from Wikipedia need not be notable, verifiable or POV-neutral. I'd reserve it for certain specific articles, though, not for every energy tech article in WP. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep PESWiki Founder makes some very valid points, which don't appear to have been taken into consideration--Tess Tickle 13:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such as? —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • OK, you didn't have to repeat the whole rant. We must assume that everybody who participates in this discussion is paying attention to what has been said. If you have reasons to want the article kept, state them. You'll need to address the reasons of those who want the article deleted, which are based on a wide range of policies. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone tell me the better, more authoritative, less commercial website source for information on research into cutting edge energy technology? If we are to assume that PESWiki is some form of self promoting self referential site, then there must be another that meets Wikipedia's criterion? I find PESWiki to be the definitive, balanced, authoritative wiki on this subject. Shame if Wikipedia deletes it, and this will cast serious doubts upon the vaunted Wikipedian policies! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnww2 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 18 August 2006. — Possible single purpose account: Johnww2 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Please read my User:johnww2 page before discounting my contribution to the discussion. Thanks.

• Delete per above will381796 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As Sterlingda has informed I urged him back in May to create a page about his wiki site, and I'm pleased to see he has followed up on my encouragement. As for the issue of whether or not the article meets WP:WEB I find this particular Wikipedia guideline very oblique and prone to POV interpretations. In my view the subject of this article, the PESWiki, is notable enough. __meco 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo asks in what way I have responded to his contentions.

Let me be specific, point for point:

Pablo says

"It is a vanity page"

Sterling replies

It is a review of PESWiki.com, which is a news, directory, and open source project service for cutting-edge energy technologies, unparalleled anywhere on the internet, said to be the best by many leaders in the field. [10]

Pablo says

"quite possibly unverifiable"

Sterling replies

Note the number of references to the site in a Google search for peswiki, some of which references have been appended to the article. Google tallies 48,900 references.

Pablo says

"an advertisement (since it prominently links to sites that earn money from ads and from the sale of the "energy-related" articles they promote)."

Sterling replies

A site having revenue income outside of just donations does not constitute grounds for it not being addressed or linked from Wikipedia. Not everyone has to beg, though PES Network would not have survived without generous contributions in the beginning. It is now self-funded. That should be an argument for vitality, not the other way around.

Pablo said

"non-notable"

Sterling replies

I have documented here (which someone removed) that many of PESWiki's energy listings come up higher in Google searches for key terms than Wikipedia for those same terms, often coming within the top five, and even in the first position in some cases, such as "Open Source Energy". We are ahead of CNN, CNET, and even the U.S. Government and all other institutions on the planet for many search terms. If that is not notable, I don't know what is. And it isn't because we trick the search engines. The http://googlehigh.com site I posted documents the opposite -- our high ranking comes from a principle of "honesty really is the best policy.

Pablo says

"forum"

Sterling replies

The volume of back-and-forth commentary taking place on the site is maybe around 2 - 5% (a guess). It is very low. Most pages are objective presentations of their subject matter, and include links to skeptical input. That is as it should be.

Pablo says

"fringe technologies"

Sterling says

Today's truth was yesterday's blasphemy. Indeed, we push the envelope. That is our mission -- something Wikipedia is unwilling to do, hence the void that needed to be filled. Someone needs to be willing to think outside the box and explore new possibilities, or no advancement will be made. Wikipedia specializes in well-established science. PESWiki specializes in cutting-edge science, often bleeding-edge. Few are courageous enough to risk their reputations in such uncharted territory, but for those who are, we provide a venue for their exploration.

Pablo said

"trying to make a point"

Sterling replies

According to WP:POINT, this apparently has to do with a Wikipedia user posting something not for its merits, but to create controversy in order to illustrate an argument through an extreme example. I assure you that I had no such agenda in posting the page. As stated in the memo at the time I posted the page, I was posting the page based on another user suggesting a couple of months earlier that I do so. The page was posted with all sincerity, and is an accurate, if not inadequate synopsis of a very in-depth and substantial site, whose contents has been created through the collaborative efforts of many.

In summary, I have replied to each of Pablo's criticism, showing them to be overwhelmingly groundless. I must say that when he first posted the "delete" suggestion on the page, I was tempted to post a "delete" suggestion on his user page. I didn't know how to do so, or I would have. Perhaps someone else, who is more Wikipedia conversant can do so. Let the Wikipedia community decide if Pablo should continue as a contributor in good standing. I would certainly vote "delete." With people like him making such ridiculous suggestions with absolutely no substantial merit, only personal bias and knee-jerk observations, the caliber and meaningful future of Wikipedia is jeopardized.

As a sampling of PESWiki merit, please review our most recent page: Review:The Corporation. See also the listing of the most recent major page postings at PESWiki to get a feel for the frequency and caliber of new PESWiki content, which has been mostly consistent from the beginning, two years ago, when the site commenced.

Sterlingda 18:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted above with an earlier comment I made, but someone deleted it as irrelevant. I deem it highly relevant for documenting how significant a site PESWiki is. I spent a morning preparing this information for this defense. I don't appreciate other users removing it.

Sample topics that come up higher in Google for PESWiki than for Wikipedia:
(as of Aug. 15, 2006)
(search terms are not in quotations to limit them to that word sequence or juxtaposition)

• open source energy (137,000,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/energy/OS is #7
  • other PES Network sites rank #1, 2, 5, 6
  • site ranking #3,4 is a former PES Network associate
  • cnn is #10
  • cnet is #11
  • Wikipedia #23

• new energy congress (112,000,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/energy/Free_Energy_Congress is #1,2
  • other PES Network sites rank #3 and #10
  • http://energy.senate.gov is #4
  • businessweek is #5
  • www.house.gov is #8
  • cnn.com is #27
  • cnet is #30
  • whitehouse.gov is #38
  • wikipedia is #52

• Tesla Motors (2,300,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Tesla_Motors,_Inc. comes up #10
  • motortrend.com is #4
  • wired.com is #6
  • CNET is #21
  • Wikipedia is #28

• Tesla Motors Inc (399,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Tesla_Motors,_Inc. comes up #3, immediately after corporate site
  • Wikipedia entry is #8.

• home generation (668,000,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Home_Generation is #1
  • cnn.com is #10
  • Wikipedia does not rank in top 10

• hydrogen from water (44,100,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Hydrogen_from_Water is #3
  • purdue.edu is #8
  • physchem.co.za is #9
  • sciam.com is #10
  • sciencedaily.com is #12
  • physorg.com is #14
  • nature.com is #16
  • bbc.co.uk is #23
  • nrel.gov is #31
  • CNET is #34
  • greencarcongress.com is #49
  • wired.com is #51
  • doe.gov is #54
  • wikipedia is not in top 100

• stirling energy systems (2,260,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Stirling_Energy_Systems is #4 after three corporate links
  • sandia.gov is #5 (where the company has been hosted, and where President Bush announced his energy policy)
  • wired.com is #7
  • answers.com #9
  • Wikipedia is #18

• hydrogen technology applications (23,700,000 entries at Google) and hydrogen technology applications inc (6,030,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hydrogen_Technology_Applications_Inc comes up #3, immediately after corporate site
  • wikipedia comes up #10 and #8, respectively
  • eere.energy.gov is #9 for Hydrogen Technology Applications

• bioperformance (101,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:BioPerformance_Fuel is #1, before corporate site (had 40,000+ MLM dealers)
  • oag.state.tx.us is #6 (Attorney General's office that temporarily shut down Bioperformance)
  • Wikipedia is #22

References:

• http://Google.com
• http://googlehigh.com - by PES Network, gives reason for its high returns at Google; no gimmick, just consistently good page layout that is rewarded by Google for reasons of honesty.

Sterlingda 18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the following response to Pablo who posted a message to my talk page requesting that I remove my comments about him, as well as the Where PESWiki.com Surpasses Wikipedia in Google Searches section.

Hi Pablo. Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say "PESWiki is better than Wikipedia". I pointed out that PESWiki excels for some search terms. I didn't say so explicitly, but those search terms are not inconsequential. The point was to document that your assertion that PESWiki is "not notable" is not true.

Your arguments for deletion were shown by me to be groundless in each particular. Why don't you acknowledge as much? Likewise, I could show that each of the other arguments are without merit. I honed in on you because you were the one who commenced to AfD, and you had the gall to respond to one of the supporters for non-deletion by asking how I had rebuffed your arguments, so I elaborated, point by point. I wouldn't repeat myself if you would make such ridiculous statements as "Such as?" in response to the user comment "PESWiki Founder makes some very valid points, which don't appear to have been taken into consideration".

I stand by my assertion that Wikipedia would be better served without knee-jerk reactionaries such as yourself who make accusations that are groundless. Let me ask you. How much time did you take looking at PESWiki.com before posting the AfD? The answer to that question is found in the history of the page. Twelve minutes max. That is absolutely asinine that you would be able to render any kind good judgment in such a short period of time. Yet you carry yourself in your wording as if you are some big hot shot at Wikipedia. You should lose your privileges at Wikipedia, which is not well-served by the likes of you being free to throw your weight around.

Several critics above said that the PESWiki article fails for reasons of WP:WEB. The updated External articles and references section documents some relevant mainstream press citations, satisfying the first condition: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

'Ramifications for Wikipidia

Should laziness on the part of those voting for deletion -- because they do not roll up their sleeves to see if significant citations exist -- constitute grounds for deletion of a page? Except for one reference, I populated this list of links by doing a simple Google search on PESWiki and "New Energy Congress". The list is not comprehensive.

I thought one of the functioning principles of Wikipedia was that one person doesn't have to do all the work, but posts what he/she can, and others clean it up, expand it, post documentation, etc. That was not the case here. Rather, a few users responded in a knee-jerk manner, without doing any research, and assumed a certain thing (the article topic, PESWiki.com, is "not notable" based on WP:WEB), and rendered a decision based on that assumption. That assumption was wrong, they were wrong to vote for deletion. Their conclusion was groundless.

Do they continue in good standing at Wikipedia, and continue propagating such sloppy work? The first response to a new page should not be skepticism and persecution, but should be honest inquiry into the possibilities of legitimacy. I received no such queries in my talk page. Twelve minutes after PESWiki was posted, it was labeled AfD.

Sterlingda 18:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.

When User:Pablo-flores first came to the PESWiki page, and wondered about notability, rather than assume that non existed, without doing a check (which we can safely assume is what he did given the mere 12 minutes that transpired from the time the page was posted to the time he posted AfD), he should have either 1) done nothing; or 2) he should have done a web search to discover some significant links, and add them to the page for the benefit of subsequent users. Only after doing such a search, and coming up empty-handed, would he then be justified in posting a AfD based in part on the "non-notable" criteria. In this case, he would have found significant references.

Speaking of making a point, it seems that he was trying to be a hero for Wikipedia, keeping unworthy content out, at the expense of actually determining whether or not the content had merit. Again, I say an AfD should be posted on his user page, and he, and others like him, should not be allowed to continue in good standing at Wikipedia.

Sterlingda 19:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed all of the major concerns mentioned above. If there is still a concern that is not addressed, which constitutes grounds for page deletion, please bring it to my attention so I can either address it, or agree that the page does not belong at Wikipedia per that reason. Sterlingda 18:45, 20 August 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 was delete (and I miss you, Grampa). DS 04:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable neologism, few Google hits and all from one book, Alive and Well:The Emergence of the Active Nonagenarian. Warofdreams talk 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. (Also, I can't make head or tail of what exactly is being said there. Help, anyone?) --Planetary 01:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sloppily-spelled article about a non-notable neologism with a garnish of pseudoscience. Opabinia regalis 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The mailman stole my socks! --Xrblsnggt 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Opabina -- Deville (Talk) 03:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Delete as above Betacommand 04:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per NEO and stolen socks. A tragedy. SynergeticMaggot 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Peta 05:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable term. JIP | Talk 06:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism. 1ne 06:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Neologism Martinp23 11:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. Cynical 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable neologism, dicdef, the only source is the book which came up with the term. Danny Lilithborne 23:10, 15 August 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 was speedy delete patent nonsense no need to waste time and energy on the full process. ~~ N (t/c) 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a nonexistent thing. Delete Green caterpillar 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We have plenty of articles about nonexistent things, from Roman Empire through perpetual motion machine to Babylon 5. What, per our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is your reason for wanting this article on a non-existent thing deleted? Uncle G 01:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, no sources, unverified, and no disstinction between fact and fiction. It would be like saying "Zeus is..." or "Zeus soemtimes..." or something to that effect. --Planetary 01:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete total nonsense. No two words in this article seem to have any shared google hits. Opabinia regalis 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity. He's only been on this planet once? Kooblog the Noorian has has been here more times than that and there's no article for him or any of his seven manifestations. --Xrblsnggt 02:15, 15 August 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 was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced of notability, and the current article is a whole can of unusually wordy adspam. Opabinia regalis 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes the Google test as a current notable London venue. Should be rewritten per List of London's gentlemen's clubs (where it is not listed). --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyvio removed, stubified. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a rewrite, even if there's not much to rewrite. --Draicone ^(talk) 09:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Passes google test, but needs a rewrite, Martinp23 12:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. Note: now listed in List of London's gentlemen's clubs. --Daniel Olsen 00:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The place may be more notable than we think. <KF> 01:54, 16 August 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 was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 06:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She seems non-notable. There are only two mentions of her in the one external link on the article, and I can't really find anything else about her. —Mets501 (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been significantly expanded, now she seems notable enough. I change my vote to Keep. —Mets501 (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand Seems like a genuine article to me. But unverifiable because of her low profile and the status of Uruguay in those years. --Ageo020 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no doubt that it's genuine. I just don't think she's notable, and being unverifiable doesn't help. —Mets501 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand, I'll go with the expand but I could be convinced otherwise. The linked article mentions that she represented Uruguay in the Interamerican Women's Conference. My guess would be that her status in the women's movement is comparable to some of the lesser-known American sufferage activists, of whom I am sure we have articles aplenty. -- Deville (Talk) 03:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Associations with notable people don't confer notability. wikipediatrix 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect — To Alberto Demichelli - all of the info in this article is already in that one. Failing this, it should be expanded hugely. Martinp23 20:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep We're seriously considering keeping the cat of a daughter of an ex-president Misty Malarky Ying Yang while proposing deleting the diplomat wife of another? I'll expand it a bit. Dlyons493 Talk 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - it's in better shape now. I might do a little more, but I think there are plenty valid claims to notability. Dlyons493 Talk 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - good save, folks. humblefool® 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep nonimator now wants to keep article. --Edgelord 03:01, 16 August 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 was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Band that fails notability test, and WP:BAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightLago (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 02:11:48

• Do Not Delete Band does not fail notability test, band meets the following criteria: Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...):
  • See August 2006 Relix Magazine Page 86;
  • See Jambase (published 7/27/06) Jambase Review;
  • See The Phoenix (published 7/27/06) Future Rock show preview;
  • See Glide Magazine (published 7/10/06) Glide Magazine Review;
• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kinkornkhan (talk • contribs) .
• Delete — The notability of the subject needs to be asserted in the article. If such an assertation is made in the article itself, then my vote would be keep. Martinp23 12:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clear evidence of notability. If the information is available, but not in the article, then the logical response is to add the information, not delete the article! Cynical 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The text of this article is taken from here, here, here, and the band's site (futurerock.net). If someone can manage to find some other words to describe them, keep. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cynical and BaseballBaby. --HResearcher 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cynical and rewrite. --Daniel Olsen 00:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 17 August 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 was delete; not even funny. DS 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax. Search for "James Whitehorn" Bolivia in Google registers nothing outside of Wikipedia, which would certainly not be the case for a capped Bolivian national team player. fuzzy510 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure if this is a hoax. Try google search "James Whitehorn"+.football[11]. If anything James Whitehorn isn't notable enough. --HResearcher 00:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, definite hoax -- Deville (Talk) 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax, joke etc., googling the name with Footballer gives also nothing to confirm. Good catch fuzzy510. feydey 09:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax/joke. Mr Stephen 11:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete — hoax Martinp23 12:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete as hoax Cynical 14:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --HResearcher 00:31, 16 August 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 was delete. DS 04:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NN spam. ~~ N (t/c) 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Spam Advertisement --Ageo020 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam -- Deville (Talk) 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Fried spam and eggs. SynergeticMaggot 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 06:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very transparent. C56C 08:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per all above Martinp23 12:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam Cynical 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete spam. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spam, unfortunately, is not a criterion for CSD. ~~ N (t/c) 22:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Richardcavell 00:08, 16 August 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 was merge, the tag is already on the article so there's nothing to do (afd is not a place to vote upon new tasks for admins). - Bobet 09:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did not follow through to AfD 2 and 3, so I am copy and pasting his edit summary: RobJ1981 (Talk | contribs) m (Added AFD: there is already a Ben Holladay page, there doesn't need to be two.) No opinion from me. Srose (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Some of his early and personal life should be merged into the Ben Holladay article. --Ageo020 02:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything useful;delete as redundant if there's nothing to merge. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per all others -- Deville (Talk) 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I think that somebody could merge this into Benjamin Holladay. Just like full name. Daniel's page ☎ 03:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge — To the common english usage of the name per naming conventions. SynergeticMaggot 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge — Per all above Martinp23 11:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the above. Cynical 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge' per above makes most sense really Yuckfoo 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the useful and relevant material. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Benjamin Holladay. Its all been said before. RFerreira 22:09, 18 August 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 was delete. alphaChimp ^laudare 11:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article concerning a software program is unsourced, reads like an advertisement, and contains no assertion of notability. The software itself was released less than two months ago, and I could not find any info on the subject from "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." See WP:VERIFY, WP:ADS, and WP:SOFTWARE. --Satori Son 02:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE as of now. Get back to us when it's a viable Drupal or PHP-Nuke competitor. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subjects of Wikipedia are assessed on their own merits, not in relation to other more well-known subjects. Cynical 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and as per Dhartung. wikipediatrix 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per wikipediatrix - also it's version 0.5.2, so surely not ready to be on WP yet. Martinp23 17:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Martinp23. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yomangani^talk 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Sure, this is exciting (as in "wow, an actually working Ruby on Rails-based generic CMS!") and seems to net quite a few google hits (89,900 for "radiant cms"), especially on blogs. Yet, I have a tiny bit of worry that this might not be that widely used or widely discussed yet, and as the nom says, this is a rather new application. Since this is such a short stub right now, I don't see the harm of deleting this now and recreating it when (I'm saying "when" instead of "when or if", because all built-with-even-half-brain Rails-based things seem to get ridiculous amounts of hype =) the thing gets more mature and there's absolutely no question about it's notability. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've tried it and it's a very solid CMS, and extremely extensible. However, the article is very short because I've asked the author's permission to use some content from the project's webpage on the article and haven't heard from him yet. And:
  • It's not a Drupal competitor. It's supposed to be (and it is) a simpler CMS. The use of the Rails framework allows it to be easily extended to your own needs.
  • I don't think version-number can ever possibily be an issue regarding deletion. Reason/example? Look at enlightenment.
  • 119.000 google hits, not 89.900. :P
  • I don't know how the notability policy has been used regarding blogs, but as mentioned before, it's beeing talked about quite a lot. Anyway, I doubt that small OSS aplications will ever match the criteria in WP:SOFTWARE (at least in the way I'm interpreting it).

  Jvale 10:08, 19 August 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 was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article is about an minor actress who is nn, appears to be authored by the actress, fails WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO KnightLago 02:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, possible vanity. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious vanity by looking at the history of the article. Also being an extra in a sitcom is non notable. --Ageo020 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity. Daniel's page ☎ 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable actress, vanity article. JIP | Talk 06:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Vanity Martinp23 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep She has appeared on nine episodes of Scrubs per IMDB; if she plays a recurring regular character rather than a background extra, that would make her notable IMO. Can someone who actually watches the show comment on this? NawlinWiki 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've cleaned up the article and removed most of the vanity stuff. NawlinWiki 14:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable. Cynical 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One job doesn't make an actor notable. She's not listed in the Season 5 episode guide at either nbc.com or scrubs-tv.com. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nine episodes as nothing equals nothing. The role of Lisa isn't listed anywhere on Scrubs, and not mentioned in any page of the program's Edispode guide, and a search for "Jordan Zucker" at nbc.com returns 0hits. Ohconfucius 05:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable actress. 1ne 05:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifably notable actress. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 17 August 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 was speedy delete A7 —Mets501 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod tag was removed. Fails WP:BAND. IceCreamAntisocial 02:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I couldnt even find anything for ghits. Fails WP:BAND. SynergeticMaggot 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per above Martinp23 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, so tagged, notability not asserted, "Currently working on their debut EP". NawlinWiki 13:53, 15 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No notability asserted and only 1 movie shown here. Delete. TerriersFan 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, actually looks like a hoax, but even if everything in the article is accurate this is nowhere near the bar set in WP:PORN BIO -- Deville (Talk) 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — nn Martinp23 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V. IMDB entry doesn't look relevant to porn. This is probably an attack page or joke against an acquaintance, labeling him a gay porn star. Fan-1967 00:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Konman72 09:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above will381796 06:03, 19 August 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 was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 06:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable amateur wrestler, also fails WP:AUTO, and WP:VAIN, speedy delete was removed without comment by author KnightLago 03:11, 15 August 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 was delete. 1ne 22:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Wrestlingcruft. Does not establish notability of subject. Article even notes that it's subjective. wikipediatrix 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think that the subjective you refer to applies to the article itself, which is wholly objective. -- Koffieyahoo 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. -- Koffieyahoo 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete RobJ1981 05:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Koffie, who does, it should be said, properly observe that the article objectively and verifiably presents the subjective views of an individual but that such views are unencyclopedic. Joe 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was precisely my own point - that the article is a list of Meltzer's opinions, rather than facts. wikipediatrix 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete — listcruft Martinp23 13:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What's the problem with this article. For me it's useful and interesting and also helps people to decide which matches worth watching!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.69.108 (talk • contribs)
• Delete listcruft. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is cruft of the highest order -- Deville (Talk) 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nintendude list. Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DONT DELETE. This is a useful article and it just shows the opinion of one man no subjection— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.108.24 (talk • contribs)
• DONT DELETE! This page is very helpful for me and a lot of other people I know— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.79.92 (talk • contribs)
• Delete It's nothing more than the opinion of a very biased person.TJ Spyke 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - ironically the same can be said about your opinion in this discussion TJ Spyke. I'm also confused as to how such an article wasn't listed at WP:PW as this is a pretty notable article in wrestling and the opinions are broad on the topic of Dave Meltzer. --- Lid 09:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEp- I added a note to the article explaining that the list is picked solely by him and may be subject to biased. Its still a intresting article for many wrestling fans. I believe it makes a good reference point for fans. Warmon 14:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete - This is a VERY good reference site that many people use when looking for great matches. Maybe it should be Merged with the WO main page, but it should not be deleted under any circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.97.6.148 (talk • contribs)
  • Meltzer has a bias against WWE(and WCW before it went out of business) and this is nothing more than his opinions. Besides, this would be worse than having a page of movies that got 2 thumbs up from Siskel & Ebert/Ebert & Roper. TJ Spyke 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Dave Meltzer's or the WO main article. Not really worth a full page, but reference-worthy. Drjayphd 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since both Dave Meltzer and the Wretling Observer Newsletter are considered to be one of the most respected true news sources in pro wrestling I can't see how this is not notable. I would prefer my vote to be Merge but since the choice right now seems to be between Delete and Keep I have to vote for keep. If the choice comes down to Keep or Merge then you can shift my vote to the latter. Sorry I forgot to sign my name Stephen Day 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listcruft and just nn. Burgwerworldz 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Roger Ebert is just as respected in the movie industry but you don't see a page devoted to movies he's given high ratings(or thumbs-up ratings) to, do you? No, it's because of the same reason why this page shouldn't exist. TJ Spyke 03:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody created such a page my reaction would be the same, it does have its place, but its as a part of the Dave Meltzer (or Roger Ebert in case of the example) page. If its a choice between Delete and Keep however, I'd say Keep in both cases. Stephen Day 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more point I thought should be added for clarifacation. Its not really accurate to compare this list to a list of movies Roger Ebert has given thumbs up to. Meltzer so rarely gives five stars to matches that In a great many circles this list is considered to be an equilivent to a list of the greatest pro wrestling matches ever. Keeping that in mind only increases my thought that this information has its place here. Stephen Day 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with merging it into the Dave Meltzer article. I prefer to Delete it, but a Merge would be acceptable to me. TJ Spyke 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge. Either way, don't delete. Meltzer isn't just a respected critic, he is THE respected critic of wrestling. His accolades mean quite a lot to the industry and its fans. BM2 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It sounds like TJSpyke is very biased against someone he finds so biased. Get over. Any kind of list like this will be subjective, but this is probably one of the most respected lists of the best matches in wrestling history from 1980 to now that covers ALL wrestling, not just mainstream. Pages like this expose people to other promotions, other wrestlers, and matches they'd never watch otherwise. TJ Spyke is just upset because Dave Meltzer didn't go hog wild for Shelton Benjamin and Shawn Michaels. Well, Meltzer doesn't get upset when you don't go hog wild for the matches he lists as *****. Seriously, TJ Spyke just hates Meltzer and his opinion in this subject matter is not valid because of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.97.6.148 (talk • contribs)
  • My personal opinion of Meltzer has nothing to do with this, I would vote for Delete/Merge even if I agreed with him. TJ Spyke 21:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've been moaning about this thing just because it's not in line with your opinion on what's a 5 Star Match. Look at it like this. Wikipedia should have a list of the greatest wrestling matches. THIS IS THE CLOSEST TO THAT AND IT IS THE MOST RESPECTED.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.97.6.148 (talk • contribs)
    • Learn to sign your posts, and maybe register. Why does Wikipedia need a list of what matches 1 person thinks are great? This is just his opinion. TJ Spyke 00:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...because this one person is the most respected critic in the industry. No other man really comes close in terms of influence. When people talk about a match being a 5-Star match, they are usually referring to a match that Meltzer has awarded 5 stars. BM2 00:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While i respect Meltzer, i do not think this deserves it's own page and is just listcruft. 67.137.12.144 00:41, 20 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable small business Carax 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Small publishing house; their current big product appears to be books on acting for children by a fellow who coaches child actors. Not sufficiently notable. --Brianyoumans 07:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — nn Martinp23 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable yet. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. non-notable per nom. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:52, 15 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listcruft. Vague and indiscriminate collection of stereotypes, with no actual connection to film offered. wikipediatrix 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, original research without the research, as far as I can tell. Gazpacho 05:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unusable listcruft, original research, unreferenced. JIP | Talk 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article does not cite reliable sources. I'll change my opinion if some are added. WilyD 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedic, no citations. HighInBC 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — yet more listcruft Martinp23 13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR Cynical 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mish-mash of archetypes, no criteria, context or explanation.--Nydas 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a few weeks ago I merged this article with list of stock film roles based on ethnic stereotypes. What I should have done was put both articles up for AfD. This list is an unmanageable, unverifiable pile of useless OR. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete offensive OR. Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the reasons listed above.--Derco 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Essentially POV. Konman72 09:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP is not censored. If people are concerned about unverified entries, why not place a {fact} tag next to them instead of nominating it for deletion? The information in the article is, I believe, mostly genuine, it simply needs to be verified. --Tess Tickle 13:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who said that WP should be censored? "it simply needs to be verified." True, I guess, but the verify tag has been there for a while and no one seems interested in adding sources. AND I brought this issue up on the discussion page, and no one seems interested in adding sources. Adding individual fact tags to every entry would be redundant. And besides, who gets to define what the criteria is for being a stock film role? There's no way this can be defined, really. This list is a breeding ground for original research, and it always will be.--Derco 04:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ya see, the problem is, that not everyone is one wikipeadia eery spare minute of every day. Some people don't sign in for months at a time. If left alone, the article would, I believe, contain sufficient refererences for it to warrant inclusion in time. --Tess Tickle 01:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Could be a good drinking game to play, to think up any role which could be construed as a racial stereotype, but wiki is not WP:NFT. Ohconfucius 01:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per most of the above. KleenupKrew 04:01, 19 August 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 was speedy keep just passed AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones (architect). —Mets501 (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is not notable. Completed works were carried out by the company in which the subject is a partner, or in collaboration with other practices. As cited in the deletion discussion for Alastair Hall, this does not itslef confer notability. In addition, some information listed on the pages, particularly relating to published sources, is unverifiable. Mugabe 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completed Mugabe's nomination. Last nomination was closed on August 4. Gazpacho 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep subject notable, and already passed an AfD a few weeks ago. C56C 08:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete notability was established according to non-verifiable criteria (inclusion in Wallpaper* magazine not verifiable online); and by reference to awards won, which were not won by the individual but by the practice. To quote from the discussion on the Alastair Hall deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alastair_Hall) (as cited by Mugabe) "And as has been demonstrated with the Cue Ball group or other business organizations deleted on grounds of a shaky claim to notability, notability within a notable organization is not a claim to notability". Adam bones 09:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V does not require sources to be available online, only to be available to some other editors. Gazpacho 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Subject notable, see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones (architect)

Martinp23 11:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep, passed AFD a week and a half ago. BoojiBoy 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:DEL:'A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion' Cynical 14:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with Cynical. Even if the first AfD result was questionable, it is still too soon for a second nomination. --Satori Son 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's too soon to put back on AFD. This should have been to deletion review before it went back here. --Edgelord 19:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cynical. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:11, 15 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

notability not established: what is an "iron law", and why doesn't it have its own article? This list is almost entirely redlinked anyway, and the existing ones are very sketchy themselves. wikipediatrix 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the blue links justify its existence. Gazpacho 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without establishing what an "iron law" is supposed to be, one could just as easily make a list of blue-linked articles with the word "the" in them. wikipediatrix 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a list of things that have nothing to do with each other except that they have "iron law" in there name. Hence, an indiscriminate collection of information. Hence, delete. -- Koffieyahoo 04:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, indiscriminate collection of unrelated topics. Even a category would probably be too much. Sandstein 04:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Indiscriminate collection Martinp23 13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - indiscriminate list -- Whpq 16:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as iron listcruft. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, one could imagine a dab page at Iron Law -- Deville (Talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yomangani^talk 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most entries are redlinks anyhow. KleenupKrew 04:02, 19 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no actual "banned list" such as the one postulated in this article, it's entirely an Original Research construct based on a POV assumption. wikipediatrix 04:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No references, and an article name/term that is unclear as to what it refers to. LinaMishima 04:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per WP:NEO, WP:OR and basic cruft. External links in the article have nothing to do with the topic either. SynergeticMaggot 04:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with comedian without menitioning "banned list" as a concept. It is well-know that comedians avoid certain topics. However, there is no named concept as such. -- Koffieyahoo 04:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, contrary to the text, many comedians have made a point of doing 9-11 jokes of deliberately poor taste (most notably Gilbert Gottfried), and Holocaust jokes are also not uncommon (Even Jon Stewart did one when he hosted the Oscars) . wikipediatrix 05:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:OR, the author says on the talk page that it's "insider information". Sandstein 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:OR, fails WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unsupported tripe. Travislangley 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't think of a single issue where every single comedian on earth has avoided. It's original research. ColourBurst 06:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Fails WP:OR, if verifiable sources can be found, then merge into Comedian Martinp23 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:V and the author asserts that it fails WP:OR WilyD 12:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ColourBurst. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mostly POV. Green caterpillar 20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OR -- Deville (Talk) 22:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverified, and likely unverifiable, original research.-- danntm ^T _C 00:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well known term among comedians--Tess Tickle 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Come back when you have some reliable sources. RFerreira 21:52, 18 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's next? List of actresses who played prostitutes in movies? Julia Roberts! Sure, Marine is a respectable profession but so is police officer. That list is a joke too. ...And Beyond! 04:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As WP:NOT says, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." wikipediatrix 04:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep relates information that a catagory cannot, and interestingly informative. Entries appear to check out, so my references rule is met. I can't see any other way to compile this information, hence keep. LinaMishima 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to be compiled in the first place? "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." wikipediatrix 04:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The best way to compile this information is by category. The other aspect of this "article" contrary to WP:NOT is that it's an indescriminate collection of information and trivia. It also does not support any existing article, nor does there need to be an article on actors who played marines in movies. If this is deleted, the redirect List of actors who played Marines at movies should be deleted as well. Agent 86 04:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment you said The best way to compile this information is by category, however this is a prime example of a list that cannot currently be duplicated as a catagory - as all the actors have references to their film appearances as marines next to them. Also, WP:NOT 'indescriminate collection' does not state anything about collecting information relating people into a format for easier exploration. LinaMishima 04:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perfect example of indiscriminate collection of information. Don't bother categorizing either. Opabinia regalis 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. -- Koffieyahoo 04:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment this would not be OR if a catagory was possible, as the appearances are all referenced, as far as I can tell. LinaMishima 04:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I don't see how this is referenced. No independent sources are cited. -- Koffieyahoo 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indiscriminate collection of information, categorisation would be OK. Sandstein 04:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft. JIP | Talk 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what is next, a list of actors who have played waitresses? Street-sweepers? Congressmen? You could generate these sorts of things forever, and each one would be interesting for about 5 people. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 06:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and probably the same five people for them all Martinp23 13:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete useless. C56C 08:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clearly listcruft. feydey 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. What's next, "List of non-actors who played cows in films under 30 mins in length"? (|-- UlTiMuS 09:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reason to have a list for everything. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — There's too many pointless lists on wikipedia already - we don't need any more! Martinp23 13:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless listcruft. Cynical 14:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and figure out a way to allow every user to generate such entertaining, but definitely nonencyclopedic and useless, lists on demand. --DrTorstenHenning 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not verified, originial research that could be considered an indiscriminate collection of information.--Isotope23 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Actually I'd be looking forward to the List of actresses who played prostitutes in movies. <KF> 02:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list would probably be too long and include too many non-notable roles. The List of actresses who played prostitutes in movies on the other hand would probably be worthwhile. --Richard 07:55, 16 August 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 was delete. 1ne 21:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another non-notable online game played in your browser. This particular one was started in June of this year. It's biggest claim to fame is that it was featured on the front page of Digg ... so what? Each day up to two dozen sites are featured on Digg, does that mean we should write articles about all of them? Cyde Weys 04:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep This nomination is obviously made in violation of WP:POINT in retaliation against me (the editor who started and basically wrote the article) as I am currently in a dispute with Cyde and I told him about 20 minutes ago that I'm considering reporting his actions at WP:AN/I. syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please re-read "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point", as you don't seem to understand it. Filing an AFD for an article on a subject I consider non-notable isn't "disrupting Wikipedia", it's a routine course of business. Do you actually have anything to say about why this article should be kept, or does your defense consist solely of attacking my character and motives? --Cyde Weys 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I have not attacked your character, and never have, despite you attacking mine on a number of occassions. (See your closing comment here for an example.) WP:POINT is not precisely what I should've linked to, admittedly, rather my point is that you are listing this article on AfD to antagonize me because I have threatened to report your actions. If this isn't the case, then I'm sorry. At any rate, this is notable irreguardless of your nomination because it recieved over 1,000 diggs in a matter of days, which is exceptional. I'd have listed more detailed information about the extraordinary rate of signups for the game, however that is original research. The article passes WP:WEB, which is a horribly broken guideline anyhow. (See my essay on the subject.) syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you visit Digg that often? Every day more than a dozen different articles receive over one thousand Diggs. Again, Digg.com isn't so inherently notable that anything it touches automatically becomes notable too. --Cyde Weys 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no indication that it meets any of the criteria of WP:SOFTWARE or even WP:WEB; WP:NOT an index of all web games. Sandstein 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Digg article establishes notability. WP:WEB is not policy, the same goes for WP:SOFTWARE, the criteria of which eliminates basically all browser-based games from Wikipedia. syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The "Digg article" is not an article but appears to be some sort of blog or forum post. WP:WEB is a guideline and authoritative as such. As with WP:SOFTWARE, it boils down to demanding reliable published sources for any claim of notability, which are not in evidence in this case. Sandstein 05:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you'll read my nomination statement you'll see that I say up to two dozen different links are featured on Digg every day. Merely being featured on Digg doesn't automatically make something so notable that it gets its own article. We're writing an encyclopedia of general knowledge, not an encyclopedia of everything mentioned on a popular internet site. --Cyde Weys 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I must agree with these statements about the Digg article, and it was my intent to list this at AfD if I couldn't find any other articles to establish its notability, especially due to the severe decline in the popularity of the game. It appears to have been a one hit wonder, and certainly doesn't merit a place in Wikipedia. However, the nomination was obviously made in bad faith, and being a big fan of process, I'd rather this nomination be discarded so that I can nominate it under my own name. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everywhere you go you're constantly accusing me of doing everything in bad faith. Don't you think accusing someone of doing everything in bad faith ... is itself in bad faith, and thus a violation of WP:AGF? --Cyde Weys 05:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non notable. Fails WP:V, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB and WP:NOT.--Peephole 04:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In what way does this violate WP:V? syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its only "sources" are the game's website itself and a Digg mention ... Digg mentions, by the way, are very small capsule summaries of no more than 300 characters and are written by Joe Q. Internet. There are no third-party journal or newspaper mentions that discuss this game. Everything in the article comes directly from the game itself, which counts as original research. --Cyde Weys 05:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per Cyde and Sandstein. This article's references fail WP:RS. SynergeticMaggot 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment True, I didn't consider that. I had considered nominating this myself for deletion earlier, and I wasn't certain if the Digg article was a good source, however I couldn't find WP:RS. I suggest a Speedy Let Me Relist, because it's rather obvious that User:Cyde still made the nomination in bad faith, and I'd rather kill the article myself. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:You have to prove its in bad faith, which you havent. This isnt going to be relisted, its going to be deleted per the consensus its achieving. SynergeticMaggot 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I thought I'd proven it rather clearly; I'm involved in a dispute with Cyde and told him that I'm going to report his actions (such as blocking me in a manner and for reasons wholly against blocking policy), and not 20 minutes later he listed this article, which I created, for deletion. If that's not a bad faith nomination, I don't know what is. Sure, the article should be deleted, however the inital nomination shouldn't be a bad faith one, in my opinion, as it could easily open the door for a DRV if a rabid Slave Hack player were to find this deletion discussion and notify the entire game community about it. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I'm uninvolved, and I see no indication of bad faith in this AfD. If Cyde is in a dispute with you, it is reasonable for him to review your contributions, and to nominate for AfD any deletion-worthy article he happens to notice in this course. This is standard operating procedure. Construing it as a personal attack on you would seem to imply that you own the article, which, well, you don't. In any case, this is entirely immaterial to whether this AfD should be relisted, which would serve no purpose at all. I fail to see how even a bad faith, but valid AfD would be a violation of process overturnable via DRV. Sandstein 07:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Well, it doesn't matter that much anyhow; the point is that it ought to be deleted. I'd rather not bring my dispute with Cyde to this AfD. syphonbyte _(t|c) 07:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while there's something entertainingly meta about playing a computer game that simulates hacking people's computers, it's still non-notable webcruft. Opabinia regalis 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Peta 06:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Alexa ranking is 25,316 - that's fairly high. Kingdom of Loathing (which I would argue is definitely notable) is Alexa rank 8,667. I think this may not be notable yet, but could need an article if it gets more popular and persists over time.--Brianyoumans 06:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is very high; higher than I'd have expected. I'll save the content of the article, if the game gets popular again and some articles are published on it, I'll do some work to the article and create it.
• Keep Because an admin should know better then violate WP:POINT when in a conflict with a user. If another user, unrelated to the admin in conflict proposes it, I will reconsider then. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sandstein and per nom. Even if this nomination was done in bad faith - and I see zero evidence for Syphonbite's assertion that it was - that doesn't change the fact that bringing it to AfD is the right call. wikipediatrix 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — nn Martinp23 19:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sandstein. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing more I can add, as everyone has already stated exactly why I would delete this. Bad-Faith or not, *I* would have nominated this article for and AfD even if speedy kept. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all -- Deville (Talk) 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Wikipedia SHOULD be the definitive source for information on internet pop phenomena. A Digg user or Slave Hack player would like to know more about the game... Why not provide them with that additional information? --AStanhope 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:NOT. What you think Wikipedia should be is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not a source for information on internet pop phenomena. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Rather than trying to make Wikipedia into something that it isn't, why not go somewhere else that already is what you're looking for. For example, I'm sure there's a Wikia that specializes in "internet pop phenomena" .. hell, you could probably start a Wikia for Internet-based games, and who knows, it might even be very popular (I gather there's a fair number of people playing these games). But Wikipedia just isn't the appropriate place, sorry. --Cyde Weys 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cyde is correct; to put it in a less hostile tone, the scope of Wikipedia is too small to include Slave Hack in it at the moment. A Wiki with a scope that included Slave Hack would be a great place for the article, though. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep info baby, johny 5 needs more info. --Tess Tickle 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please come up with something more coherent? This doesn't make sense. --Cyde Weys 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree, I can't make heads or tails of that statement. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you two chaps working together? --Tess Tickle 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly, in fact we are involved in a bit of a dispute. I actually wrote this article, and Cyde nominated it for AfD. I agree with the reason for the AfD, though, so you could say that we're working together to make the encyclopedia better. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see. Well, to answer the question, my statement purports to portray my own viewpoint that an enclopeadia should be, well, encyclopeadiac. By stating that johny 5 needs more info, I'm expressing my belief that the encylopeadia would be better served by including the article, and improving it. Happy to help. --Tess Tickle 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, web game obscurata. NTK 04:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Heh, usually I'm deletionist, but... keep. ugen64 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you actually have any reasoning besides doing something out of character for yourself? This is a discussion, not a vote, and you haven't added anything to the discussion other than your Wikipedia philosophy, which is irrelevant regarding the notability of this subject. --Cyde Weys 21:25, 20 August 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 was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 06:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band, does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC (unsigned band formed two days ago) Stormie 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. Travislangley 05:20, 15 August 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 was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 06:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

does not meet notability criteria of WP:MUSIC; vanity page (article on Ady Mac created by User:Adymac) Stormie 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I first put the speedy deletion tag on it - it's a self-promotional article created for vanity purposes. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 05:58, 15 August 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 was Merge to Sasquatch! Music Festival (This was done on Aug 18 but the AfD was not closed, so I'm doing it even though I participated in this AfD. The consensus was unanimous, so I'm being bold.) Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not the correct title of the festival. Sasquatch! Music Festival is a better article and should be kept Evan Reyes 04:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge and redirect to Sasquatch! Music Festival. --Metropolitan90 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Travislangley 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sasquatch! Music Festival feydey 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge — and redirect Martinp23 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - thre's nothing to merge since the target article already has the information. -- Whpq 20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per feydey. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per feydey. --EndlessVince 05:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can I go ahead and create the redirect page now? Evan Reyes 22:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do it. --EndlessVince 23:59, 18 August 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 was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reads Like An AD again IMac4ME 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mostly ad content, no indication of meeting WP:CORP evident from the article. Sandstein 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I am reluctant to move for deletion with this many ghits. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article was one big advertisement for the company with at least some of the stuff copied from their web site. I've editted teh article down to a stub with teh remoal of the advertising text, but agree with Ultimus that they look notable. -- Whpq 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rewrite and expand without the marketing mixed in. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite — plenty of ghits, but needs expanding Martinp23 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Reading like an ad means an article needs a rewrite, not a nuclear bomb. --Daniel Olsen 00:52, 16 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This term appears to have originated as a joke on the Simpsons reflecting an obscure urban legend. There's no evidence that it is in widespread use or indeed in any use at all outside Wikipedia, so it should be deleted as a non-notable neologism (WP:NEO, WP:WINAD). In the first AfD discussion, the principal argument for keeping it was that it in fact was a verifiable Simpsons joke, but that does not make it encyclopedic in and of itself, in my opinion. Sandstein 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As a matter of fact, this episode will be coming out on DVD today. Someone might want to check out the commentary track to see if the term was invented by a Simpsons writer or if it actually existed before the Simpsons. Based on what I know, though, I'd say redirect to "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson". All the Google references seem to refer to this episode (or to a literal cheeseburger from California). Zagalejo 05:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment I do think that some original Simpsons jokes are notable, like Can't sleep, clown will eat me or Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. However, this joke hasn't had the same cultural impact as any of those. Zagalejo 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — or merge per above. Martinp23 12:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Zagalejo GrahameS 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I watch the Simpsons and I can't remember this at all. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of ethnic slurs. Green caterpillar 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I do recall the episode, it is not notable. Most California cheeseburgers on google are legit recipes (I didn't check them all, but beef seemed to be a primary ingredient :-) ) --TeaDrinker 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge per above -- Deville (Talk) 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• D'oh-lete! This is a minor joke and has no significance whatsoever. --Thatdog 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Forgettable gag; definitely not on the menu at In-N-Out. Dryman 21:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN per above will381796 06:06, 19 August 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically an ad, though it's a strange product to be advertising to encyclopedia readers. 113 Google hits. Opabinia regalis 05:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam. On a side note: What!? aren't Opabinia tagged with superflexitags? ;-) -- Koffieyahoo 06:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, with the five eyes we can see the taggers coming from a mile away. You just think we're extinct. Opabinia regalis 06:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — spam Martinp23 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did a double-take because I thought it said "superflexitagalistic" for some reason. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Superflexitagalisticexpialadosheet, this sounds like a total ad, so kindly please delete. --Sertrel 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spam -- Deville (Talk) 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam and doesn't meet WP:Notability criteria for marine mammal identification tags available with hot foil double deep embossed or laser printed as required. - Yomangani^talk 00:12, 16 August 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.