< August 15	August 17 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybernovela[edit]

Protologism, unreferenced, author of this article has stated elsewhere that this is a genre that does not yet exist [1] earlier version of this article was part of an advertising campaign for a forthcoming production with claims that it would be "the first of this genre". Note that the first version of this article [2] heavily promotes this production. Although the "first cybernovela", which the author seems to have some interest in promoting, has not been released, they have written about the characteristics of cybernovelas (plural) in general: I'm not sure how this is possible. Suggest speedy delete on the grounds of lack of notability. -- The Anome 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it looks unimportant --Alex ^{talk here} 00:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  And surely it's cybernovel? --Alex ^{talk here} 00:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I think they are thinking in terms of telenovelas on the web. -- The Anome 00:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Nevermind... --Alex ^{talk here} 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete no sources listed, appears to be original research. --HResearcher 00:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not this bleeding-edge. (Good to be back, btw.) humblefool® 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete "Cybernovel" gets ~2,000 Ghits, "cybernovela" gets ~500, but only 11 unique hits in English, a few of which use the term in the same way as the article. JChap T/E 03:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless appropriately sourced. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Original research and no sources Martinp23 09:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete It does get some hits Googling in Spanish e.g. for Stephen King but it's not yet really notable. Dlyons493 Talk 11:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Soap opera on the internet. Sounds interesting but unnotable. Couldn't find enough in English on google. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 20:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, and non-notable. Daniel's page ☎ 23:05, 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 Speedily deleted by The Anome. Viridae^Talk 00:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linalf Galf MBE[edit]

This article seems to be some sort of poorly thought out joke. This apparently made up character supposedly attended "Lord Snobbington Preparatory Institute" and he was top of his class is "woodworking and cookery". A google search for Linalf Galf yields nothing. The more I read the article, it is definitely a candidate for speedy deletion, but oh well. I guess we are supposed to give editors the benefit of the doubt, despite their previous contributions. Fopkins | Talk 00:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've speedy deleted this, since it is patent nonsense, as are the rest of this editor's other contributions. -- The Anome 00:34, 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 redirect to Dwarf (Warhammer) following the merge. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trollslayer[edit]

Does not look to be important for an encyclopedia and has not had a clean-up or improvement of the text since it was created in January 2006. If deletion does not meet the consensus, than I suggest the article be shortened in able to simplify what is called a "Trollslayer" (i.e. the book named after the word or whatever). ~ clearthought 14:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into related WH article. This is worth a 2 line mention, not its own article. --Svartalf 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonnotable Warhammer detail. The related WH article is Dwarf (Warhammer) and that already contains a description under the Slayers section. MLA 09:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per MLA. Viridae^Talk 00:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. Someone will find that usefull, and if there's a book named Trollslayer, someone's going to look for it eventually. humblefool® 01:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. Per above. Aranherunar 03:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per MLA. J Milburn 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per above recommendations--Ed^{talk c E} 13:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I DAB'd the page... info already merged to Dwarf (Warhammer).--Isotope23 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't think the disambig page is useful. The meaning of "trollslayer" can be covered separately in each of the main articles. JIP | Talk 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect per JIP's reasoning. --WillMak050389 15:31, 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 keep. - Bobet 09:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EAcceleration[edit]

Seems like advert-spam for non-notable product. Mattisse(talk) 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend Speedy Delete - this is an attack page. Davidnason 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've removed the bit that you considered an attack (whether having most of the article focus on a lawsuit against the company is considered an attack is arguable) so it should not be speedy deleted. Recury 18:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - should include refrences correctly, and could use a lot of clean-up, but I believe it can be salvaged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pogogunner (talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 August 2006

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Pogogunner (talk • contribs). TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but cleanup. Don't these guys advertise on TV, too? humblefool® 01:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the attack part has been restored to the article, claiming that EAcceleration is a ripoff. Isn't that what Davidnason was complaining about as an attack page above? Mattisse(talk) 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Lots of Google hits, mostly things like "this is spyare" and "how do I remove it"? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Pogogunner. --Ariadoss 05:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ariadoss --Daniel Olsen 05:23, 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. Kimchi.sg 05:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casual communications[edit]

At least a partial copyvio from the provided external link. Beyond that, it's just a (fairly useless) dictdef. Staecker 18:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, then maybe redirect somewhere useful. It' s neologism-riffic! humblefool® 01:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another one of those <adjective> <noun> articles. Can't think what this might be a search term for, but redirect if anyone else can. Opabinia regalis 02:46, 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 Speedy delete as a simple re-creation of content deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis-showing game. There's no reason that Wikipedia cannot have an anthropological article on an aspect of human behaviour, per Billy Blythe below. But neither this, nor the prior article, are anything like that at all, or even the start of such an article. Editors wanting a "smerge" should note that this is already mentioned in Waiting.... Uncle G 09:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The penis showing game[edit]

• Delete nonnotable new fad. Mukadderat 01:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete nn game. Viridae^Talk 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Though there might be space for it in the Waiting... article. humblefool® 01:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's nothing here that can't be covered in the movie article. Provides no evidence that this has become a notable fad in real life. Rohirok 01:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and if it isn't already in the Waiting article, move it there. --Wafulz 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & merge into the Waiting article. There's no evidence that this is actually a fad (fortunately, if I may say so). Srose (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC

• Comment delete and merge is a violation of the GFDL. Has to do with credit for content. ColourBurst 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been trying to figure out what to do with something like this. I found it patrolling new pages. I don't know why people do this, but I wish they wouldn't. It is true that in most cultures showing one's genitals is a means of showing disrespect. That's obvious, at least to me, an educated man. There could be an excellent article on the practise of showing the genital area as a way of showing contempt, but it would require experts from several fields, anthropology, classics, sociology, psychology, art history just to name a few. There could be an article here, and there probably are several out there. The problem is that this is a lowbrow thing made up in school one day that happens to strike a chord with cross-cultural human behaviour. I should have just let it be speedily deleted at once, and I regret putting up a hangon sign. Delete,please.Billy Blythe 01:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete uselessness. Am I losing my mind or has this been created and deleted already? Opabinia regalis 02:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as recreated deleted material. AFD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis-showing game, and the page Penis-showing game has been deleted six times and now salted. Opabinia's mind is still intact, it would seem. Kuru ^talk 03:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it appears to be notable. Unfortunately, I won't be able to doany major work on it for a few days, so it's likely to go to the trash heap anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable game. If this is a recreation of an earlier deleted article, isn't that against policy? doktorb _words^deeds 04:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (into ...Waiting); A reference from a single (not-so-notable) movie does not establish notabilty. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rinse, repeat.--Planetary 06:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speede Delete as per Kuru. Dionyseus 06:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge with Waiting..., in which it seems undercovered (by comparison with the Ebert review's interpretation of its importance to the story). --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robots 2[edit]

Previously deleted in 2005 - (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robots 2), now recreated. There is nothing on the Net that I can find that says that this movie, scheduled for 2010, exists. imdb never heard of it, all of the Google hits are from immediately following the release of Robots saying that the creators are talking about a sequel. The character names and the actors are all made up out of whole cloth. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fiction of this sort has no place. humblefool® 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see you in 2009. Opabinia regalis 02:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Crystal ballery -M^ask 02:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Dionyseus 06:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crystal ball Konman72 09:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Wikipedia is not a fairground attraction where your fortune is told with the use of a ball of glass and a strange woman dressed in sheets Martinp23 10:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 'til it's on the IMB at least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as everyone else. If it was on IMB alone, I would still vote delete. The fact is isn't... Well. J Milburn 13:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect: If it was recreated after initial deletion, then it is most likely to be recreated again! I recommend semi-protection, since the first editor was an IP address.--Ed^{talk c E} 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Do they even plan movies like this for 4+ years? They wouldn't have the cast set in stone this far in advance either. No credible sources can be found. will381796 16:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Just having a page reserved to possible future product isn't what wikipedia is for. syvanen 20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete crystal ball. -- That Guy, From That Show! 20:20, 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 08:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The At Last World Tour[edit]

Appears to be a list of Cyndi Lauper tour locations (but no context of that is given). Doesn't appear to be notable. Crumbsucker 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no context, no sources, no article. Opabinia regalis 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do even top bands like the Stones have tour lists? No? Well, then. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete First, I have no idea what that article is. Second, no sources are cited. Third, there is nothing there except for some dates, times, and places. Worst article I have ever seen! --Ed^{talk c E} 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Nothing of value in this article, and a google search of that title only yields 15 hits. Non-notable. will381796 16:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, you can find a dvd about this tour. It's a tour by "Cyndi Lauper" for her albut called "At Last". syvanen 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 20:21, 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 08:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EagleBlood[edit]

NN artist, fails under WP:MUSIC. Also, the artist left a message on my talk page saying that someone else wrote the article and she tried to blank it to delete it- she also believes she doesn't merit an article. I'm not sure if this holds any weight or not. --Wafulz 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC doktorb _words^deeds 04:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per nom Martinp23 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — the artist's opinion is irrelevant, we can't go around deleting articles "just because people want them gone. If I could delete any article I wanted, I'd have deleted thousands by now. Phanatical 13:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Technically, the (supposed) artist wanted it gone. Did you take WP:MUSIC into account though? --209.171.52.224 15:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. 'Nuff said. --WillMak050389 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, just because the subject of the bio wants it removed doesn't mean it should be removed. This is a free encyclopedia, which anyone can edit and contribute to. I'm sure that if Pres. Bush article could be deleted on those grounds, I'm sure he would request it. --Ed^{talk c E} 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. -- That Guy, From That Show! 20:22, 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. Note that merge and delete are not really compatible, because the GFDL requires we maintain a version history. Mangojuice^talk 05:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raglan Musicians Club[edit]

Hate to dob in a NZ article, but this one really is nn. The band mentioned are moderately notable, but, well, this is hardly The Cavern. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 01:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete for lack of verifiability. There are some mentions of it in the Waikato Times, but only in the 'Line up' column for upcoming events, and the information is always limited to "The Raglan Musicians Club meets at the Salt Rock Cafe from 8pm." It's just not expandable beyond that based on current sources. nn. Ziggurat 02:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into Cornerstone Roots. Doesn't seem like this place is anything but the fact that Cornerstone Roots started there. I don't see the band as iconic enough that the places they've been can become famous in their own right. Mentions of schedules, esspecially in local newspapers, are not considered good sources for most notability guidelines, like WP:CORP. Kevin_b_er 03:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge then delete into Cornerstone Roots. After all, it only deserves a one-sentence placement in its history.--Ed^{talk c E} 15:50, 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 to List of dictators. I know some of you wanting merge also wanted deletion, but the GFDL creates an issue with that, and this makes a fine redirect. Mangojuice^talk 05:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictators currently in power[edit]

Fails to add any value to parent "List of dictators"; created simply to push POV of one editor

• Keep Any listing like this one will always have some PoV issues but most current political articles have the same problem. Knowledge in this field is never absolute nor is it ever absent of bias. To exclude such information from Wikipedia is to limit it unnecessarily. I find the listing useful even if controversial. Let a thousand flowers of debate bloom. Ggads 11:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aside from the POV issue (no annotations as in the parent, etc), this creates a synchronization problem that is unnecessary. A small change to List of dictators highlighted the rulers "currently in power", satisfying the only organization convenience this list might have had. LotLE×talk 01:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fully valid, as discussed in the AfD's for List of Dictators, and this list is very useful, separating all of the outdated rulers from the ones in power today. Anyone interested in international relations should value this list. AdamBiswanger1 01:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I also want the map to stay somewhere, either list of dictators or list of dictators currently in power.--Antispammer 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep no more POV than List of dictators, and the map does seem useful (if anything, underpopulated, but that's another matter). Opabinia regalis 02:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map is useful only for circumventing Wikipedia's NPOV policy by ignoring the intense controversy surrounding the labelling of these countries as "dictatorships". Furthermore, you cannot justify the retention of this article by comparing it to an article that most people thought should be deleted. -- WGee 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Today dictator, tomorrow valuable ally (or vice versa). Too controversial topic for living people. Pavel Vozenilek 03:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your take on this is wrong. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, a dictator, is an ally but we still list him.--Antispammer 08:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both your takes are wrong. This is an international encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view. It does not have allies and it is not presented from the viewpoint of any single country. Uncle G 09:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, inclusion of Raúl makes the case. Acting dictator for another dictator? Just reverse the lists in the main article, which are sorted by date. Gazpacho 03:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this is a creep back toward Category:Dictators, which has already been rejected.

Gazpacho 03:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with your assertion that one bad entery should get a list deleted. Woudn't removing the particular entery make more sense. That appears to be shakey grounds to delete the entire article. Also checking the article shows that he is no longer listed making that point moot. --Edgelord 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Lulu. List of dictators provides for (albeit meagre) counter balance and explanation (though no serious analysis or references to such studies I note). This list fails even to do that. A small change to List of dictators highlighting the leaders "currently in power" should suffice. And Raúl? --Zleitzen 04:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have copied and pasted the explanations to this article, so I believe any remaining opposition is geared towards List of Dictators, not this article. AdamBiswanger1 04:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I was one of the keep voters on the AfD for "List of dictators", and one of the main editors who shaped up the criteria and annotations there. So I think the general list is OK, albeit requiring active monitoring to prevent POV-creep. I simply don't see any advantage to this "digest" of the larger list, since the highlights I added to the larger list make reading the "currently in power" feature quite easy (I used boldface for years "-present"; but some other convention would be fine). LotLE×talk 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merge new info with List of dictators. 24.126.199.129 08:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just add something on the main list that differentiates current from past. Konman72 09:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge — And mark those in power with a small note at List of dictators Martinp23 10:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a better and more interesting list than List of dictators. Dictators currently in power is a notable list in itself and deserving of a wikipedia article. If there are disputes over whether a particular person in power is a dictator, that can be dealt with as part of the article rather than by deleting the entire article. Merging would diminish this as not only would a notable list be removed but it would be much harder to pick out the current dictators in the larger list. MLA 10:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further the list of dictators is currently under-populated, I'll try and find time to add some of the many dictators not currently covered (starting with Jerry Rawlings) but that leads me to another reason for keep in that the list of current dictators could do with being a separate list and the existing article is already a very long list despite being incomplete. MLA 10:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictators, as demonstrated by its title, is all-inclusive; it is not limited to past dictators. Thus, all dictators, both past and present, should be discussed in that article. If you are worried about organization, perhaps a new section could be created in the original list, but, since the dictators in the list are chronologically organized, with the currently ruling dictators emphasized, I find it difficult to believe that a merger/deletion would create any confusion. -- WGee 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple to the under-populated List of dictators and it raised an interesting example to me in the form of Olusegun Obasanjo who is a former dictator but is currently in power. This is interesting and encyclopedic and it something that the article under discussion here could cover where the List of dictators would struggle to. MLA 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - reasonable, well cited article that has a specific, encyclopaedic function. I can't imagine any plausible argument for deletion. WilyD 13:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Martinp23. Why can't their just be a few of this wonderful little thing-*- on the List of Dictators page? J Milburn 13:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is already a List of dictators ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MLA Dev920 14:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - List of dictators is already a controversial article (a POV in my opinion). If we can't merge this one into that than Delete it. Reason? Pavel Vozenilek got one above. -- Szvest 14:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}[reply]
• Merge into List of dictators; why not create a "Current" section there? I don't see the point in having a separate article for dictators currently in power. The only effects it can have are:
  • It will merely separate and perhaps double the vandalism,
  • It will serve to confuse readers (they may not realize that ex-dictators have a separate articles, or will search for "List of previous dictators" rather than "List of dictators"). Srose (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the delete into List of dictators. Mark the merge "Current dictators" in the list page. The map should also be included in the "Current dictators"section--Ed^{talk c E} 16:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as merged. --Vsion 17:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge then delete as suggested above. 204.15.220.162 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above unsigned was by me, logged out. Arkyan 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of dictators. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete first off it is a list, and that violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory and the article violates WP:NPOV, plus it is missing Dick Cheney on the list. Displaced Brit 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dick Cheney a dictator????--Ed^{talk c E} 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Nothing but a disruptive POV fork. 172 | Talk 07:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 172. --Rory096 15:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A lot of the entries listed are a matter of opinion. -- Clevelander 16:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of dictators and mark those in power now --Kalsermar 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Irredeemably POV. Piccadilly 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Detele The same regarding List of dictators. Not because such a list is impossible. It is certainly possible to state some criteria for when a ruler is a dictator and then argue regarding historical persons. But doing this in Wikipedia is original research. Furthermore, the criteria will always be discussed so an article should not have name suggesting that it gives the final word on who is a dictator. Also, similar, highly respected lists already exists and are used by political scientists. See for example the Polity IV Project that for every year lists the degree of democracy and autocracy in every state since 1800. It would be better spend the energy on creating a Wikipedia article on this list.Ultramarine 21:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or mark dictators currently in power in the article "List of Dictators" (so to simplify a search for modern dictators). The map of current dictatorships in the world should be restored.--Húsönd 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That marking has already been added, thereby making the fork article of no additional organization worth. LotLE×talk 16:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the marking before. In that case, I change my position to Delete.--Húsönd 21:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Are there any? KleenupKrew 03:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is inherently biased. In order for neutrality to exist, we must discuss the controversy surrounding the allegations, including opposing viewpoints; however, this is impossible to do in a list entitled "List of dictators", as the title necessarily and erroneously implies that every leader within it is incontrovertibly a dictator. Let the leaders' policies and actions, which are outlined in their respective articles, serve as a neutral indication of their alleged dictatorial nature; do not try to make unconditional assertions based on the idiosyncratic inferences of editors (i.e., original research). In addition, reigning dictators are already discussed in the List of dictators, thereby making this article superfluous and a POV fork. If organization or "usefulness" is your concern, create a separate section in the original article, at the most; do not create a separate article to surreptitiously promote a POV. Thus, since it is impossible to objectively and incontrovertibly categorize a group of leaders as "dictators", and because this article is a POV fork, List of dictators currently in power should be deleted. -- WGee 03:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too POV to fix. Ditto List of Dictators, as and when someone puts that up. Hornplease 05:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Trust the readers to decide the POV issue. When there is doubt, wikipedia shoule err on the side of keeping an article that obviously is of interest. Removing it would smack of dictatorial censorship --- Skapur 04:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article adds nothing to List of dictators, but simply duplicates some of the material from it. It isn't censorship to reduce redundancy. -Will Beback 09:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see the point in having it when there is a more comprehensive list at "List of Dictators". This duplication isn't necessary. John Smith's 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the content/names not in List of dictators, then Strong Delete. Daniel.Bryant 13:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a reasonable, well cited article that has a specific function. A current list is of value and more topical than the complete list. The term "Dictator" is (generally) a question of fact and therefore not POV. Whether the dictator is benign or otherwise is subject to opinion. Matupitu 06:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's second edit to Wikipedia was this vote.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinchpoop[edit]

Non-notable slang. RobJ1981 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a valid word. User:Jeremiah Cruisader 21:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.214.111 (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't wiktionary. This is a dictionary definition Have suspicions about wiktionary taking this anyways. Kevin_b_er 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The term was used on the O'reilly Factor. --Antispammer 01:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed my mind. Delete It should be noted on O'Reilly_Factor#Vocabulary however.--Antispammer 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just because it was used on a show, doesn't make it notable for Wikipedia.
• Delete Lots of things have been on TV. Not notable. --Dtcdthingy 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It could be included in O'Reilly_Factor#Vocabulary. Srose (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. Bucketsofg✐ 02:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. -- Alias Flood 03:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Dionyseus 06:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Silly. Dev920 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could just as well have been made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not belong anywhere in the Wikimedia Foundation, whether it be Wikipedia, Wiktionary, whatever. Also voting delete per above statements.--Ed^{talk c E} 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. O'Reilly_Factor#Vocabulary is sufficient. Garrepi 17:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense Crap. --Corporal Punishment 20:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC st the very least, rest of the definition seems to be simply nonsense. -- The Anome 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not a slang dictionary. And if it was, it would not be practical to write an article on everyone's little coined insults. How old are we? Lauren 22:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how old most of us are, but I'm 13 and not a vandal who makes (literal) shit jokes, so... 1ne 05:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Bill O'Reilly says a lot of things.--Greasysteve13 04:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Urbandictionary. 1ne 05:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per WP:NEO and WP:NFT Ohconfucius 07:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Sertrel 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Words are constantly being made up. Yes, it should be in Wiktionary instead, but no one has put it there either. Valid word. End of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.152.72 (talk • contribs)

Yes, they are being constantly made up, but when a page like this comes up, it violates WP:NEO. 1ne 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mr/Ms. 70.119.152.72, if you think it should be in Wiktionary what is stopping you putting it in there? Doesn't belong here. End of story--Greasysteve13 05:06, 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 Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAJAM[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement Xrblsnggt 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per rewrite --Xrblsnggt 01:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Gazpacho 03:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm unable to discern any notabilty after sifting through the adspeak. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteKeep per rewrite. Viridae^Talk 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Viridae et al. 24.126.199.129 07:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I took an axe to the adspeak, and what's left is an article about a notable songwriting and production team. I think the article should be kept. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Comment: And I added some external references which establish verifiability and notability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as stubified. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Notability asserted by the fact that they have worked with artists who are notable enough to be on WP. Martinp23 10:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 12:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The rewritten stub seems notable, verifiable, and objective. Smerdis of Tlön 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Martinp23. It just needs a little expansion. Lauren 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the new version. - Richardcavell 23:14, 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 and redirect to Macintosh Finder. Despite what Arsians think, WP:V isn't suspended because it came from the Ars forums. There were valid criticisms, and they were merged into the Finder article. I also placed a listing on List of Internet slang terms. I only stepped in because I saw it listed on Ars' mainpage. That says a lot.  RasputinAXP  13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FTFF[edit]

If you came here because you saw a posting on Ars Technica, the apparent origination of this term, 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)).

• Definition of a message board term catchphrase that is not widely used (948 Google hits, mostly blog posts and duplicates). The useful content could be moved to a Criticism section of Macintosh Finder. Dtcdthingy 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge: It is absurd to think that an article on 'FTFF' provides any advancement in knowledge. Nobody is really interested in what 'FTFF' is in itself, rather the criticisms which should be in the Macintosh Finder article. Danrees 08:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The FTFF phenomena is significant, but not significant enough to warrent its own article. The article should be merged into the Finder article under criticisms. Kethinov 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I get 10,100 hits for the query cited as having "948 Google hits" above. I also get 40,800 hits in Google for "FTFF". (Some are unrelated, but not 39,852 of them.) "FTFF Apple" has 10,800 hits. "FTFF Mac" has 11,300 hits. -- John Siracusa 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything useful and redirect. Opabinia regalis 03:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Opabinia regalis has made 1164 edits since May 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain: Wikipedia serves as a valuable tool for looking up unfamiliar acronyms and phrases, to learn what they refer to. FTFF serves as a unifying mantra for a large number of Mac users, some of whom have a great deal of influence in the Mac technical community, and the rallying cry has taken on a life of its own, beyond mere "finder criticism", a term which doesn't begin to capture the emotion evoked by "FTFF". It is something of an umbrella term, encompassing many areas of concern with the current finder, and so the article could stand to be expanded and clarified. But there's no reason to remove it altogether --jacobolus (t) 07:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Jacobolus has made 3623 edits since January 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it does not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. What you are looking for, for looking up the meanings of words and phrases, is a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The dictionary is over there. Uncle G 09:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it does. FTFF perhaps deserves an entry at Wiktionary giving the definition alone, but it should be pretty blatantly obvious that there's more to FTFF than just a definition. It is thus worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Keep per User:jacobolus and User:Horbal. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 04:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. Again: The tool for looking up the meanings of words and phrases is a dictionary. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Our articles are about people, places, concepts, events, and things. Encyclopaedic content about the Macintosh Finder, including a discussion of user requests for its improvement, belongs in Macintosh Finder (broken out in Wikipedia:Summary style into a sub-article if it becomes too long). Having such encyclopaedic content under this title is as absurd as having the encyclopaedia article about Muhammad Ali under the title I am the greatest. Please see our Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Uncle G 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • FTFF is not just a phrase, it is also a concept. It represents the idea that a large group of users of a particular product who have a common criticism of it can coin a phrase/acronym that espouses said criticism in the hopes that their request - however rudely put - will be heard. FTFF is damn near a movement in parts of the Mac community, and is separated from being purely a simplistic word or phrase by this fact (not to mention it is a cry that has remained apparently unheard by Apple for years now, but one day will be addressed, and as such will make up an interesting aspect of the development of the Mac OS X operating system, and maybe the FTFF page will end up with a happy ending). Silic0n 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. The thing is Macintosh Finder, and the concept is the set of people's opinions on that thing. Per our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, which is non-negotiable, articles may not promote particular opinions. Opinions on the Finder range across a spectrum. Any encyclopaedic reporting of those opinions belongs in the article on the thing that those opinions relate to, Macintosh Finder. Uncle G 14:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The entry is not a "reporting of opinion," and it is not advocacy. It's an explanation of the origins and history of a particular well-known term, and the movement it represents. It's as separate a "thing" as d'oh! is from The_Simpsons. -- Siracusa 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you misunderstand me. There is always some overlap between defining a term and explaining it. But a dictionary is unlikely to provide the information I'm looking for when I search for "FTFF". FTFF is a term understood by most members of the Macintosh technical community. It explains a common sentiment among a large cross section of that community, and has become more than mere criticism of a product. As others have said, FTFF is something more of a subculture than anything, and is well-enough known to be notable. This is distinct from mere Finder criticism, and merging it with that page would prevent further explanation of the term. --jacobolus (t) 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge — definition to List of Internet slang phrases Martinp23 10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Martinp23 has made 2238 edits since January 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not used often enough even for a merge to the internet slang phrases article. Merge to Macintosh Finder. Recury 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Recury has made 3081 edits since December 2004. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is going to be kept retained, it will need to add verifiable sources. This page has some good guidelines on what Wikipedia considers reliable. If none are available, then we have to delete. Recury 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's a "verifiable source" for something like this? Is the argument really that it doesn't exist or was made up for the benefit of Wikipedia? I don't understand this objection. As far as I know, there is no contested information in the entry. John Siracusa 04:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The contested information would be the coinage claims and the claims that this is a big deal among Mac users along with their specific complaints. Read the links I posted for more info on what kind of sources to use, especially the part about using forum posts as sources. They do a better job of explaining all this than I would. Recury 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A source would be a previously published journal article, book, magazine feature article, or suchlike, that discusses user suggestions to improve the Macintosh Finder in depth, and that is written by someone wholly independent of those users. If indeed "Wikipedia [...] is the [...] only [...] place to get a concise explanation of the term.", as stated on the discussion forum linked to above, then this article violates our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. It is not here for the purpose of documenting things that are not documented anywhere else. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Uncle G 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The primary source is a web forum. It just is; I'm sorry if that doesn't fit into Wikipedia's rules about sources. The secondary sources also include a lot of web forums and blogs. Most are not "wholly independent of those users" because that's the nature of blogs and forums--people expressing their opinions directly. The existence of these sources is quite easily demonstrated with a quick web search. I don't see the point in linking each one to somehow "prove" that FTFF exists as a notable term in the Mac community. In fact, I don't see this information even being challenged. Instead, I see a series of "procedural" arguments. If someone really thinks this entry should be removed because FTFF doesn't exist or is not actually a grassroots, three-year-old, organic movement, then say so plainly, and be prepared to support your contention. All existing evidence and testimony from those in the Mac community, however "inadequate" it may be according to Wikipedia's guidelines for sources, says otherwise. -- Siracusa 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • An encycplopaedia is a catalog of articles dealing with a wide range of human knowledge. Obviously defintions belong in a dictionary, but FTFF is a statement that defines a group (or perhaps a sub-group). As any Sociology dictionary will tell you, a subgroup is often defined by shared opinions and shared slang. FTFF is a page describing the slang that defines a subgroup. The Primary Source that you desire is the group itself, which exists on an internet board. Ethanjohn 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just to clarify, the "group" is not confined to a particular site or board. It spans the entire Mac community. -- John Siracusa 15:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Opabinia regalis. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User DDima has made 4427 edits since December 2005. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have never seen this before. If you want to look stuff like that go to urban dictionary. Dev920 21:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Dev920 has made 1571 edits since March 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not having seen something before is hardly a reason to delete it from the Wikipaedia. Ethanjohn 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism. Lauren 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Lawilkin has made 411 edits since July 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the word "neologism" itself gets a page, but not a purported example of a neologism? —Siracusa 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. The concept of neologisms is notable - we're all using recently established words daily. Examples of such can be discussed in the neologism article, and notable neologisms may get an article of their own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So explain why this one is not "notable." -- John Siracusa 11:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain: This may not appear in a generic "jargon file" or "urban dictionary" because it's so specific to a particular subculture. Merging it with another related page has the disadvantage of decreasing the visibility of the information. As an individual page and search result, it's succinct and to the point. I often google for "wikipedia mysearchterm" these days because the wikipedia page is usually the most concise and straightforward information source. If I had to wade through an already large "Finder" page scanning for occurrences of "FTFF," it'd be a less efficient and less pleasant experience. Retain and cross-link, not merge. This is the web, not real estate. There's little cost to a separate page, and many benefits. —Siracusa 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Siracusa has made 17 edits since March 2006, most to this AfD. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain: "FTFF" is more than an acronym or mere neologism, it encompasses and accurately identifies a particular sub-cultural movement. It might even be considered a sort of rallying cry or pass-mot among Macintosh users. Furthrmore, this entry is clearly more detailed than a dictionary definition and well-written to boot. Keep it. Horbal 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make it clear. This is not a definition and I don't see anything in the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" link cited by Uncle G above that renders this article objectionable. If Where's the beef?, d'oh!, All your base are belong to us and Beam me up, Scotty can have entries, then so should FTFF. The difference is only a matter of degree. But if Wikipedia's goal is comprehensiveness and inclusiveness, this is no reason to eliminate a perfectly valid entry, simply because it may be relatively obscure. As Siracusa said, this is the web, not real estate. Horbal 03:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Dtcdthingy 04:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see nothing in that guideline that forbids this entry. John Siracusa 04:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nor do I. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 04:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, that article is poorly written. The list contains some specific examples of how the guideline may be applied, which is confusing, but I was referring to the guideline in general. --Dtcdthingy 05:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So how does this general guideline apply in this specific case? What is your argument? (beyond your earlier contention that FTFF is "not widely used") -- John Siracusa 05:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then I assume you are quoting that guideline for its title? If so, there is nothing "wikt:indiscriminate" about this entry. The entry is written well and, IMO, covers a valid topic. Horbal 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Horbal has made 16 edits since October 2004. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^^ Ironically, most of the reason for my infrequent attempts to contribute is that I hate wasting my time contributing to something only to have self-appointed wiki-police (obviously with more time on their hands) shout it down. Horbal 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Funny, personally, I contributed to a lot of stuff before anyone ever tried to "shout me down", and I think most of these so far have been resolved quite peacefully. I've noted you get nowhere in Wikipedia unless you're always prepared to seek compromises. =) Anyway, I was not trying to shout you down. People with less contributions can, and are encouraged to, leave comments; However, what comes to the retainment/delete headcount, their voices on that matter get less voice. Consider that marker there a "this had better be a good excuse" marker. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also contributed to a lot of stuff before running into a contentious entry (which is when I registered and quickly soured on the experience). Regardless, the notion that edit counts somehow lend more credence to a user's opinion is flawed, at best. Arguments should be considered on their merits, not based on that user's past contributions to other threads. For all I know from seeing the edit counts you're posting on this page, the bulk of your 3000 edits are about your friend's indie rock band. Meanwhile, you're discounting the opinions of people who are essentially experts on this particular topic, simply because they weren't motivated to contribute before. If those opinions are based on a flawed understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, that's one thing. But where they raise a valid question or objection, you should have a better argument in rebuttal than "you're new around here". Horbal 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If foo, bar, and baz have articles, then so should this" is an old argument that just doesn't fly. We're discussing notability of this article. Feel free to nominate any of those for deletion if you feel they are worthless. But in those cases, their notability can be established easily. Can it, in this case? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the "notability" of this term is well-established. It is practically a term of art in the Mac world. It has existed for over three years. It is well-known and often used, and debated among Mac users across the entire net. As for arguing that this entry should stay because other, similar entries exist and are not contested, that's at least a stronger argument than attempting to diminish the comments of others by "rating" them based on the number of comments they've made to Wikipedia, which wwwwolf has done throughout this page. -- John Siracusa 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I don't think any of those articles are worthless! I'm merely pointing them out as analogues to this one. They explain an idiom to the uninitiated, much like this entry does. Quite frankly, I don't see the difference, other than degree of popularity and, again, I never realized Wikipedia was a popularity contest. What's the point of that? Horbal 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain: FTFF must stay until they FTFF. Then the issue is moot. Silic0n 03:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Silic0n has made 20 edits since November 2005. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, I had no idea that your opinion is irrelevant if you spend more time reading Wikipedia than editing it Silic0n 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, your opinion is irrelevant if you can't make a good argument why the article should be kept or deleted. Newbies, and people who do not actively participate in the functioning of Wikipedia, can make their opinions heard here - though I highly doubt that an opinion to retain the article without explaining it in any way in regards to common reasons to retain or delete the article will be given too much weight. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Uncle G 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain - per jacobolus. joshbuddy, talk 03:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Joshbuddy has made 2301 edits since September 2005. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Retain - it is useful if a Wikipedia search for a term at least points to the definition expected, especially for technical terms Bombcar 03:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Bombcar has made 91 edits since July 2004. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain - The entry is succinct and informative. It is a useful reference to which Mac users (new and old) can be referred to learn about criticisms of the current Macintosh Finder, and itself refers to further reading. Ravi Pokala 03:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Ravi_Pokala has made 4 edits since February 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain -- FTFF is immediately recognizable even to those, like me, who are not Power Mac users. I am just a Mac guy, and I have known what this term has meant for years. -- Unsigned comment by User:69.180.180.174
• In the edit history for this page, there appears to be some conflict over John being "the most well-known user of this term." Also in the history, John claims "I've used the term exactly once that I can recall (in my Tiger review), and only in reference to its use by others." I see no proof that John is "the most well-known user" of FTFF and frankly find the banner spanning the top of this page to be 1) intellectually offensive, and 2) a dishonest attempt to sway discussion. While it could be argued that John's post to ArsTechnica is an equally dishonest attempt to sway discussion, two wrongs do not make a right. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain - This needs to stay because until the Finder is improved, OSX will not be truly complete, and Apple has been lazy, it's symbolic of continued pressure on them to fix it. col_kurtz
  • — Possible single purpose account: Col_kurtz (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.--wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's the originator of the term. Feel free to contact him offline or confirm this for yourself by searching the net for the earliest occurrence of the term. -- John Siracusa 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Uncle G 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain or Merge - It's a succinct explanation of technical jargon, condensing years of back-and-forth discussion into a few paragraphs. The term is frequently used, and having it available as a separate article is likely useful. It would be a shame to lose such a thorough, yet short, explanation. If you must pull it into the Macintosh entry, that would be acceptable, but perhaps suboptimal. It's of high interest to a subset of people looking up information about the Macintosh, but not all of them. Added in a second edit: wwwwolf is playing games by 'rating' users based on their number of contributions, and mostly for people he disagrees with. Argue on merits, not on users. Malor
  • User Malor has made 5 edits since January 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's not playing games. That is how the AFD process works, established users' opinions are given more weight because they are more familiar with Wikipedia's policies. The opinions of users who came here because of a forum post to vote are given much less weight. Recury 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be a shame to lose such a thorough, yet short, explanation. — Then please cite sources, where this "technical jargon" and the "movement" that it represents have been documented in detail by a reliable source outside of Wikipedia and independent of the proponents of the "movement", to demonstrate that this is not original research. The article cites no sources at all, currently. Uncle G 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sourced criticism on Finder and comments on users' frustration might be welcome in Macintosh Finder article. As the article stands now, it looks, sounds, and smells like a political/activisim tool to pressure Apple, which is echoed in above comments too ("Merging it with another related page has the disadvantage of decreasing the visibility of the information", "FTFF must stay until they FTFF. Then the issue is moot"). Which is useless, of course, I'm sure Apple can't be pressured just with a random Wikipedia article and blog/message board comments that are harshly critical to them. =/ We should therefore consider this in relation to some other political/activist slogans. This isn't quite up there in historical significance with "read my lips..." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Wwwwolf has made 3248 edits since May 2004. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entry is explanatory and informative. It is not advocacy. The visibility that I cited aids people who want to know what it means and learn the history behind it. Like any topic where there are strong feelings, there will be those who want to use the entry for advocacy. That can be (and has been) handled as usual, with edits to entry itself that maintain its neutrality. The potential for conflict in no way disqualifies the topic as a valid Wikipedia page. -- John Siracusa 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wwwwolf; protologism and astroturfing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia describes "astroturfing" as "formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior." FTFF had entirely informal origins. The proliferation off FTFF was not caused by one person or an organized cabal. It was hard to even track down the person who originally coined the term. FTFF did not even appear in a "formal" article on the site whose forums spawned it until over two years after it was coined. It is an actual grassroots phenomenon, not something posing as one. -- John Siracusa 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain This is, indeed, a well known criticism of Mac OS X. It would be a shame to see it deleted from the Wiki. -- User:87.3.203.66
• Keep It's apple sub-culture, but it's absolutely out there and it's a valid criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G3pro (talk • contribs) 09:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Retain: Is Wikipedia a repository of knowledge or not? If terms such as FTFF don't belong in an encyclopedia, could someone explain why phrases like All your base are belong to us (A.K.A AYBABTU) are still here? The fact is that there are countless useful terms that originated in message boards which can be readily found in Wikipedia. Why is this one in particular not appropriate? Is it because some of you were not familiar with it? If that's the case, all the more reason to retain it :-) GhostInTheShell
  • User GhostInTheShell has made 8 edits since July 2005. Sertrel 16:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I added edit counts for the rest of the people who participated in discussion since some people assumed I was adding those in bad faith. I didn't add them to some, mostly because the edit counter kept jamming. I might, later. The AfD will run for a while and this is a matter that'll probably be of interest to the closing admin. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain: This is an important "school" of thought and debate amongst Mac users. The FTFF meme is a recurring and broad opinion held by many high-profile Internet commentators on the Mac. Yes, it's an acronym common on many Mac-centric message boards, but its usage goes far beyond that. Kirkland 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Finder article per Opabinia regalis. Debuskjt 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Finder and Internet slang phrases. I do recall "Fuck the fucking fuckers" used in movies, and so that meaning should be preserved in Internet slang phrases, separate from "Fix the Fucking Finder". Sertrel 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - As a stand alone article it mistakes Wikipedia for a dictionary, and has no greater cultural context outside the context of a discussion of the perceived faults some see in the Macintosh Finder (contrast with widespread memes like All You Base, or Where's the Beef). Perhaps if we start seeing FTFF spray-painted on walls or bandied about by politicians to score points against rivals this will change, but until then it merits no more than a mention in the Finder page, if that. Senjutsu 22:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Senjutsu has made 3 edits since January 2005. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 05:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain: This concept is as encycalpedaic as many other ones that are maintained in Wikipedia. I don't see how it's particularly less worthy from being a movement among Mac users than many of the social or political concepts that Wikipedia has entries on, no matter how obscure. Kd5mdk 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain or Merge per jacobolus. Retain is preferrable, as this article is the first Google hit for the term. MrVacBob 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Gut and rewrite. This article has a long way to go, and needs to be stripped of all POV content - which is, unfortunately, the vast majority of it. However, as a neologism, it's a very common one in the arstechnica community, and has received sufficient recognition outside of it to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 05:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Redirect and merge to Macintosh Finder. This is far too specific for its own article, fails to cite sources, and suffers from the aforementioned problems. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 06:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: While a widely held criticism of OS X, and one that I am personally familiar with, the topic itself is too narrow to merit its own article. If OS X or its various sub-articles on the separate versions of OS X have 'criticism' sections (and the sub-articles do) - this belongs there. I recommend including this information in the Mac OS X v.10.0 article, as the original problem dates from the initial release of OS X and pervades to this day.

EDIT: after looking at the Finder page, the criticism addressed in this article belongs there.Fedallah 05:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE For all those decrying why wwwolf is posting edit counts may have missed this Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I can respect the feelings that some of these anons have completely, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites. It isn't about if a site or term has a huge following or not. It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules. Let me help out a bit so you understand. The Google searchs are really only used to back up a statement, not as a stand-alone basis for a vote though this is abused sometimes. No, the real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be original research, which means there are no sources to back up the claims of the author(s). It must also have a neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must cite it's notability with reliable sources and be must be encyclopaedic. This article fails to meet WP:V, some sections of WP:OR, does not follow the guideline of WP:CITE or WP:RS. The biggest violation beyond not citing reliable sources, is neologism. The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate and The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.. Following this, Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.. So far no one has shown that there are reliable secondary sources that fit this criteria for this article. More over Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles. So when the time comes that this term does have citations that rely on books and papers that have articles/sections about the term, then the article can be recreate. As far as personal thoughts, An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner. I hope this helps understand my take on this discussion. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FTFF is not original research. It was in use for a significant period of time before this Wikipedia article existed. There are a large number of blogs and other sources which reference the term. You may say that these are not reliable, but this is a silly argument; different areas of human thought are discussed different fora: many scientific terms are not discussed by major international newspapers, but are nonetheless notable, because they are used in scientific publications. Recently, a Pokemon character was Wikipedia's featured article. This one minor character almost assuredly has no books or papers written about it, or major news outlets explaining its various statistics; Wikipedia's article itself is the most complete and comprehensive source about the subject, synthesizing information from many other sources. All of which is to say, Wiki is not Paper. If this article is useful to Wikipedians, and helps them to understand a term and a movement in the Macintosh technical community, then the article should stay. --jacobolus (t) 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the Bulbasaur article is a large synthesis of information, it does not put forward any position about the Pokemon, and all of the facts presented are thoroughly documented with citations from the anime, major magazines, gaming guides, well-known gaming websites, books, comics, etc. The two are not comparable. That page features over 33 separate, verifiable references. What information in the FTFF article is verifiable fact? The part with the subjective list of gripes or the part that speculates about Apple's future plans for the Finder? Debuskjt 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You completely miss my point, which is not that Bulbosaur doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia. Rather, its sources are things like the "pokemon yellow walkthrough", some random fansite which explains to newbies how to play the pokemon games. This type of Pokemon information cannot be learned from Newsweek, The New York Times, or Science, because those publications are not in the business of providing guides to pokemon video game players. Instead, the information comes from the source, the pokemon walkthroughs. That does not render such information useless, however, and the case here is similar: information about FTFF comes from blogs and technical websites, rather than from the so-called "reliable" sources Brian referred to in the parent post. This is perfectly legitimate as far as I'm concerned, even though Ars Technica isn't peer-reviewed. --jacobolus (t) 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK Let's set the record straight. A decision was made to find the most rediculous, far-fetched article that still had some 'notability' tie in and use it as a flag to wave and say "Look, this one doesn't meet all the requirements as you have put them so this article shouldn't need it either". The problem with that arguement is...you are right! That article most likely violates the rules and should ALSO be in AfD! The thing that quite a few of theses AfD arguements boil down to is editors that understand the process and that not everything follows the rules, and when those articles are caught, they are cleaned up or deleted...and editors that do not understand the process and flag wave other articles that are in volation of the rules. (This is not a comment about Jacobolus, but a comment on the history of AfD's) We all know there are articles out there that deserve AfDs...all an editor has to do is look at the AfD logs day by day to see this. We know that Wikipedia is a work in process. That doesn't make it ok for articles to disregard the rules. This arguement is an end run on the rules, trying to explain why the article shouldn't have to follow them, which isn't going to win the discussion. Blogs and technical websites are not acceptable per Wikipedia's process. If anyone believes this to be wrong, then by all means fight the rules in place, but All articles must follow WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, and no wikipedia rules or consensus by editors can change this. Instead of providing weak arguements about other articles' failings (which will most likely be AfD'd now that you mentioned them) provide arguements on how this article meets all the rules I have stated in that long post. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with your arguments except for the Bulbasaur part. Please read Debuskgt comment as to why Bulbasaur cannot be compared to this article. Dionyseus 05:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • jacobolus, you are knowingly misconstruing another article to bait Brian into unwittingly making an argument about Wiki policy that isn't true. Wiki policy specifically excludes blogs (except for special circumstances) as verifiable sources. Deal with it. Also, arguing that another, unrelated article, has problematic sources doesn't fix the inherent issues in the FTFF article. For instance, Wiki policy on content forking. And whether you want to hear it or not, FTFF isn't a social movement of the masses. It is a blanket neologism to criticize the Finder. The articles inherent problems are peripheral to the fact that the very idea of the stand alone article breaking with Wiki policy on several points, including criticism, neologisms, and NPOV. Debuskjt 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I say Merge. The term itself is simply defined, and documentation of the general discontent with the Finder belongs under the Finder's heading. To properly document the discontent with the Finder in this article would require duplication of information anyway.--ryos 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per Brian, except for the Bulbasaur part. Dionyseus 05:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per Brian. I'd include the Bulbasaur part, but humor clearly doesn't trav

el well here. Tychocat 08:07, 21 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 deleted.--SB | T 02:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic angry[edit]

This is not a vote. Speedy tag "db band" by NawlinWiki removed with a hang on tag, so I am bringing it here. Teke 02:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. How do I delete you? Let me count the ways... Just being light-hearted, of courseunverified, no reliable sources, major failure of WP MUSIC inasmuchas: they have released only demos, they were formed in January 2006, they have never gone on tour so far as I can tell and they have yet to chart. Srose (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this, and when it's gone, take Tim Totten with it. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy tagged Tim Totten; this AfD has only come about because the hang on was not added by the article's creator. Teke 02:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete db-band would have been appropriate. Google search for the band gets 14 hits, mainly myspace; searching for the band and the title of their claimed EP comes up empty, making its existence unverifiable. Fan-1967 02:30, 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 08:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Siegler (second nomination)[edit]

Joe Siegler was nominated for deletion on 2005-12-21. The result of the discussion was "nomination withdrawn". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Siegler.

No assertions of notability in the current revision of the article; I looked at previous revisions and I still didn't see much notable. So he was a forum moderator of something or other ... not a big deal. Cyde Weys 02:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the article was blanked by me since it contained a lot of stuff that would not be suitable on Wikipedia, due to our policy on living folks (WP:LIVING). There also seems to be an edit war based on something that could have happened on Wikipedia. No vote from me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little concerned why I'm back on Articles for Deletion. I already survived one of these, and I can say that everything that was in the article was real, since I'm the actual person that it was about, I can say it's real. As this happened right after vandalism on my page, it just feels like the whole of Wikipedia is dumping on me because of this. I don't understand this deletion decision at all, honestly. Dopefish 02:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't survive an AFD, it was withdrawn under very curious circumstances. This one will go the whole duration. --Cyde Weys 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Very curious circumstances?" That's that in regards to? Until right now I always thought I survived, I didn't realize it was withdrawn. Dopefish 04:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, isn't the nomination for deletion template used incorrect? There's a specific nomination tag for a second nomination; shouldn't that have been used instead of what is there now? Dopefish 03:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --Cyde Weys 14:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no indication of meeting WP:BIO or anything of significance. Friday (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Joe Siegler was an important part of the section of gaming history that is Apogee Software. He was a level designer on ROTT and has made a notable contribution to every game they've released since the start of his employment, simply due to the nature of his job. TerminX 03:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's a rare forum mod who's notable enough for an article, and just participating in the design of a notable game doesn't make you notable. Opabinia regalis 03:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: no reason not to mention him in the Apogee Software article, if its relevant. I don't see anything in the current content to warrant a seperate article. Friday (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I have researched individual employees of 3D Realms in college papers dealing with the early history of the company and the shareware marketing model. That Mr. Siegler has become notable for things other than game design does not detract from his contributions to the history of the Duke Nukem franchise and the early first-person shooter Rise of the Triad. Adding complete biographies of all 3D Realms and Apogee employees to the company entries is beyond the scope of those articles. --Aesire 03:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable person in regards to Apogee/3DRealms, with enough public history to warrent a personal article. Article could perhaps be expanded, but I'm curious as to the specific reasons for a deletion request, considering the content does not meet general guidelines for an article requiring deletion. Mblackwell 03:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it also meets none of the guidelines for a biographical article (see WP:BIO). That is likely why it was nominated for deletion.--Isotope23 14:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Apogee Software Not notable to merit a separate article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO. -- Koffieyahoo 05:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The points made by Aesire seem valid. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO, lack of notability. - David Oberst 06:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'd like to consider myself an inclusionist, but this goes against WP:BIO and WP:LIVING. Maybe if the article is rewritten and referenced to show his role as a software entrepeneur, then it might be notable, but a forum mod is not notable per se, especially not a living one. Lovelac7 07:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — doesn't assert his notability Martinp23 10:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subject does not meet the WP:BIO guidelines for an article on a living person.--Isotope23 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just because someone works for a notable company or works on a popular product doesn't make them notable or meet any WP:BIO standards. Wickethewok 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN--Ed^{talk c E} 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. Or merge relevant info to Dopefish or Apogee Software, as long as he doesn't have his own article it's fine with me. Recury 16:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The fact that he worked on ROTT does not make him notable. There were probably hundreds of other individuals who played some role in the development of Apogee's games. The article seems to me to be more of a resume than a biographical article on a notable individual. Being the moderator of forums for some websites does not make you notable enough for Wikipedia, nor does being one of several programmers for a major software title. will381796 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing personal, but Microsoft has made a huge impact on the software industry, and we don't and shouldn't have biographies for every one of their employees. Unless he can be shown to be notable apart from working for a notable company or working on notable games, there's no reason for him to be on here. GrahameS 18:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Microsoft didn't champion an entire business model like Apogee did. Unfortunately, policy is policy :( Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We can't have an article for everybody who works for something important. For example: I worked at my college, and it is very important. Should I get my friends to write me an article? Also, anybody who contributes to the deletion discussion for an article about them probably is not important enough to have an article about them in the first place. No offense. Lauren 23:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As the consensus appears to be in favor of deleting this article, can we mark it for speedy deletion? will381796 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I added "software entrepreneur" to the first paragraph of the article. Pehaps that will help. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this were an article about the founder of Apogee that would be different. But the webmaster? RFerreira 07:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Being the owner and webmaster of the official Dopefish fansite means very little in terms of notability WP:BIO. The Apogee stuff on the page indicates that Apogee thinks he's an honest and reliable enough person to be trusted with the gold master, again, nothing particularly notable here. Webmasters are a dime a dozen. I would not be happy to accept the "software entrepreneur" claim on faith per WP:V. Ohconfucius 08:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties; notability is questioned since I get only 147 distinct Ghits for "joe siegler", consisting mainly of forum postings and a few press releases that quote him. I get only 55 distinct Ghits for "joseph michael siegler", mostly from IMDB. "software entrepreneur" is not automatic notability. Perhaps he could be turned into a high school? Tychocat 08:27, 21 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 kept. Is there really any room for doubt? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Blair[edit]

An anon user has placed this tag on this article, but has not created an AfD entry for the article due to the page creation restriction. I'm listing it here to finish the process for this user. No vote. - Bootstoots 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From talk page:

The Miss Teen USA 2006 pagent hasn't been aired yet (it is live from the West Coast). Who is claiming that Ms. Blair is the winner already? 71.134.181.209 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on a google news search, it does appear that she won it. Maybe it's broadcast on some sort of tape delay? Fan-1967 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was aired live here. Blair won — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark4374 (talk • contribs) at 02:45, 16 August 2006

• No Delete - While the live airing has finished for the West Coast, it can be confirmed that Katie Blair is the new winner. However, I believe that it is still too early to consider this article for deletion. A Miss Teen USA term is for one year. She has literally just become Miss Teen USA, there has been insufficient time to gauge her importance and impact to both American and other international societies. I think that we should keep this article until her Miss Teen USA term comes to an end where we can at least revisit her tenure. In addition, it is important to point out that most of her predecessors have Wikipedia articles as well. Luke 03:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For now per Luke's logic. JoshuaZ 04:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If she wonthe title, she is notable and WP should have an article about her. JChap T/E 04:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Luke. --Daniel Olsen 05:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 06:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as per Jchap. Dionyseus 06:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep — per Luke Martinp23 10:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Reigning Miss Teen USA - if anyone has a criterion for speedy, then maybe. WilyD 13:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not that my vote is really needed...Dev920 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it's not a vote .... doubly unneeded ;) WilyD 15:33, 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 as WP:Music violation.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hess[edit]

comment: since the article has changed substantially since this AFD started, I have re-listed it for additional input. Friday (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted a couple of times as vanity and non-notable, I cleaned it up a bit, this is a judgment call per WP:MUSIC. WP:DRV seems solidly behind listing on AfD, so here it is. Just zis Guy you know? 11:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see him meeting any criteria per WP:MUSIC. --Porqin 12:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, and the author needs to verify the information, anyway. ben 12:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Porqin. If there's something that qualifies him under WP:MUSIC I don't see it. Fan-1967 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This was speedy deleted again by kingboyk, but since the speedy was already contested, we should give this a few days. Friday (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I found several reviews online of his records from independant-looking sources. He's now doing a large tour with Manowar (band) and Rhapsody (band). (see article talk page). I don't like this neoclassical stuff myself and it's not all that popular, but this guy seems legit to me. I'm working on getting some sources and better info worked into the article. Friday (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Will reconsider if Friday's material is convincing. 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dpbsmith (talk • contribs) .[reply]
• Delete with same caveat as Dpbsmith. --kingboyk 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. This is imho a valid speedy deletion candidate under CSD A7. If somebody wishes to challenge the speedy deletion, such a challenge surely ought to be coupled with at least a claim of notability? All it claims is that he is an "American electric guitarist and composer". He's a member of two redlinked bands. The article says who he is influenced by but makes no claim that he is an influence on anyone else of any note. That said, I accept the reversal of my deletion; simply because I'm not one to wheel war or go against the community. (Edited. --kingboyk 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment: Sorry, I don't normally go around undoing people's closures. As a general rule I have no problem with early closure if consensus seems clear. However since this was already contested and there do appear to be sources (just not worked into the article yet), it seems reasonable to give it a few days. Friday (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm fine with that. --kingboyk 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Tom Hess is a music teacher looking for students. Which makes this article an ad, and we're not Craigslist. ~ trialsanderrors 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'm crazy, but does being a teacher automatically make the article an advert? He's also got a few records, and he's touring Europe. I'm not saying he's obviously of encyclopedic significance, he appears to be in that gray area, but let's not hold his teaching against him, eh? Robert Fripp teaches too. Friday (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If one of the first things I found googling for Robert Fripp was an article saying "I'm looking for guitar students", I'd be worried. In any case, if there are safeguards in place that this article doesn't return to gush status 24 hours after the AfD ends the closing admin can discount my vote too. ~ trialsanderrors 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reiterate Delete (Note: Don't count twice) Nothing changed from last round. CD Baby links and gush reviews establish Non-Notability. ~ trialsanderrors 08:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only if claims of notability (tours etc) are added to the article. Otherwise, the closing admin can discount my vote. Themindset 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see why there is a huge argument about this article, it says in WP: Music that a musicians notable if he/she "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources." Evidenceat[[3]], [[4]], and [[5]]. How about also being in a band with Joe Stump, a notable electric guitarist. Does that count for anything? Justinmeister 18:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like the HellHole, oops HolyHell entry redirects to Tom Hess. Not sure why that's the case. He doesn't even seem to be the primary member. ~ trialsanderrors 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, there'd been a seperate article on HolyHell, but Zoe speedy deleted it for not being significant enough. Since this guy has two major bands, Hess and HolyHell, it seems sensible to me for him to have an article. If seperate articles on the specific bands are also warranted, so be it. Friday (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm far from convinced of TH's notability (2 self-released CD's?), and I'm also far from convinced that opening slots count towards notability, but if the tour is the deciding factor, the article should probably be about HolyHell and Tom Hess should redirect to it. ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doesn't being part of a notable band warrant it's own article about that person? I mean, a guy like Jeff Campitelli has done nothing notable except being part of Joe Satriani's band. This warrants him his own article. shouldn't this 'spin off' effect apply as well to Tom Hess, if his band Holyhell is deemed notable? Justinmeister 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Afaict, they aren't. And also afaict the "better covered in the main article" standard applies to band members who have no notability of their own. ~ trialsanderrors 21:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • How do you pick and choose which band members are anymore notable than the others than? Each member is an integral part. Especially in bands without a member that stands out from the rest (as opposed to Van Halen, Cream, Led Zeppelin etc.) By that logic, most articles about bass players and drummers should be "better covered in the main article". Is it fair to discriminate against bands that aren't well known by only allowing one article for the whole band as opposed to articles for all the members. Why does Frank Bello's article exist? Justinmeister 07:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article as it stands right now does mention the european tour, so some folks might call that good enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Unfortunately, I'm off on vacation for several days starting tomorrow, so I probably won't have much time to put in additional info before the Afd ends. Friday (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like an semi-ad for a non-notable person trying to hide as a short stub article. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since he is touring Europe. That is one of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he meets WP:Music as I see it (tours europe, bandmate of notable musician, part of independant metal lable run by notable band) Justinmeister 07:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm curious why people are still saying he fails WP:MUSIC - the European tour seems to qualify. Friday (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Justinmeister. Bucketsofg✐ 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:Music because of his tours. Dionyseus 06:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: HolyHell has been deleted a couple of days ago, which should perhaps not have happened since they meet the criterion "international tour", albeit as merely a support act. Anyway, that's not relevant here; apart from this criterion, Tom Hess himself probably failes WP:MUSIC. Encyclopaedia Metallum has an entry on his band "Hess", though. --Thunderhead 14:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually recommending delete, after evaluating what I said above. --Thunderhead 10:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I found a snippet mentioning his band Hess at RockReport.be] Justinmeister 17:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The entity touring is HolyHell, not Tom Hess. If it is felt that a HolyHell article has been improperly deleted that can be taken up separately. I would note that Pollstar has not found it necessary to have either HolyHell or Tom Hess entries for past or current tour information. - David Oberst 22:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Friday, should be included based upon touring information. RFerreira 07:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tour is possibly a reason for an article on the band, but not for a page on this individual. Zaxem 09:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've restored HolyHell since a few people here indicated it might be a good idea. Maybe it's appropriate to turn Tom Hess into a redirect there if his other projects aren't considered significant enough, but doing such does not require deletion of this. Friday (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while I agree the guy is non notable, that should not be the criteria for deletion here. What SHOULD be the criteria is WP:MUSIC since he is a musician. As he fails our guidelines for inclusion, he should be deleted.  ALKIVAR™ 20:00, 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 speedy delete A7 —Mets501 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Smith and the Gullables[edit]

notability not established...no sources Anlace 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A Google test for "Jonny Smith and the Gullables" revealed 1 hit: Wikipedia. [6] Unverifiable, not to mention non-notable. - Bootstoots 03:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails all guidelines of WP:MUSIC, possible this is also a hoax as no mention of the band can be found. DrunkenSmurf 03:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC doktorb _words^deeds 04:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless Gullable is a word in the dictionary. --Dhartung | Talk 07:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — nn Martinp23 10:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Surely this could be Speedy Deleteded? I am nominating it... J Milburn 13:17, 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. Petros471 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons: Lexicon Triumvirate[edit]

This book is not notable in any way, is published by a vanity press, and is only ranked #1,379,403 on Amazon. Doinkies 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 05:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A long time ago we deleted a page on the writer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Che-Tew Eng Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per same logic as earlier. JoshuaZ 03:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per all above Martinp23 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not convinced that Dna Press is a vanity press though Dlyons493 Talk 12:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the authors page was deleted, this must be nn, surely? J Milburn 13:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom will381796 16:51, 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 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah Domestic Weapons Production[edit]

Unnecessary fork of Hezbollah rocket force. Currently, there is no reliable source to suggest that Hezbollah has indigenous weapons production capability. Vsion 03:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or possibly smerge into parent, obeying WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I don't think that this is really verifiable Martinp23 10:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete intrinsically unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 12:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:V--Ed^{talk c E} 16:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom James68 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge merge to Hezbollah_rocket_forceGSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 15:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new wrinkle[edit]

This article has only been edited (beyond deleting an image and tagging as unencyclopedic) by one of the hosts. It does not appear to be notable, merely vanity. Quentin mcalmott 03:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete No assertion of importance. -- JamesTeterenko 04:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete See above. --Planetary 06:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above Konman72 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Err, what's wrong with letting the AfD run its course? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't know guys. I'm sure that we can take our time deleting. This is a five day process. But I do want it deleted.--Ed^{talk c E} 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Regular speed delete, doesn't meet any speedy deletion criteria, but seems rather non-notable. Recury 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Google search only yields a couple of hits that are related to this show. will381796 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDima (talk • contribs) 20:32 (UTC) 16 August 2006
• Delete fails to satisfy, in any way, WP:WEB. I feel no urge to speedy, though.-- danntm ^T _C 23:47, 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 into Eminem. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 17:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hailie Jade Scott[edit]

Being the child of a celebrity does not confer notability. JoshuaZ 03:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree strongly - considering she's featured in some of his (Eminem's) songs and videos, surely it's not a bad thing that an article on her exists. I thought that the idea of Wikipedia was to provide people with as much information on everything as possible - there's hardly anything wrong with this article. Also, people such as Frances Bean Cobain have very decent articles as well.

I think that this article should be kept - as I say, there's nothing much wrong with it, and it's definitely NOT valid for deletion.

• Strong Keep - Anyone who has listened to a full album of Eminem's has heard him talk about his daughter. If anything, this article should be expanded. --Daniel Olsen 06:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Article was previously smerged from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hailie Jade into Eminem. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete — or merge with Eminem Martinp23 10:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Eminem. Notable people's kids get merged to the notable person as was the case with the Beckhams and the Jolie-Pitts. MLA 12:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the Jolie-Pitts haven't really had any coverage other than being held by their beaming parents... Dev920 14:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Eminem per MLA. Being mentioned on an Eminem is not one of the WP:BIO criteria for having an article.--Isotope23 14:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She has been the centre of the high profile custody case between eminem and his wife, and is regularly mentioned in his work. Dev920 14:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for being both a celebrity child and a key theme in a major celebrity's work. Unlike the Jolie-Pitt baby, for instance, she has been notable for reasons other than being born, such as the custody case mentioned above. If you want to talk about her inclusion as a sort of musical McGuffin, Dani (Red Hot Chili Peppers) has a page despite being referred to less than Hailie, and Eminem is probably as well-known as Red Hot Chili Peppers. SliceNYC 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Deserves a paragraph in Eminem. Only can be rewritten if becoming INDEPENDANTLY notable.--Ed^{talk c E} 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Eminem and devote a section or paragraph to her. will381796 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per Ed. GrahameS 18:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect as suggested above. Arkyan 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. per above. ThuranX 02:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. She has been at the center of a custody battle, but not based on her own actions. Dad's the one making the headlines. Fan-1967 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Eminem - she's not notable, her father is. Vashti 03:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the Eminem article. Get it over with. RFerreira 07:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Hallie Jade. Nothing has changed since the last vote. Custody battles do not confer notability. If Eminem continues creating notable works inspired by her, fine. We can list the works. I don't think she should qualify, yet. Ohconfucius 08:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, don't merge. Famous child of a highly well known musician, and the subject of a number of his works. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She is only famous because she is Eminem's daughter. Other than this, she is not notable. And because her notability, at this point, is directly due to Eminem's actions, she should not have her own article and a merge into Eminem is the best course of action. will381796 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. I don't think a merge is the best course of action. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect per above points. --WillMak050389 04:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I agree a celebrity child does not deserve their own article for being a celebrity's child. However, a similar case was made for Frances Bean Cobain, and was voted to be kept. That girl is neither more notable than Hailie is, but to quote M A Mason on that vote, "[t]he fact that people want information about her makes her a noteworthy entry, in my view."

• Frances Cobain, from what I read of that article, is at least living "under" her father's name in that she is actively engaging in interviews, etc. with magazines, if that makes any sense. She, herself, is deciding to use her father's notability and using it to enter the public eye. Haile, as far as I can tell, is not in the public eye except when mentioned in her father's songs, as a result of her father writing the lyrics, because he loves her and is a caring father. Haile isn't going out and giving interviews on Eminem or how his rapper lifestyle has affected her. She is only 10! Giving every celebrity's child an article based soley on their parents fame would begin a sad precedence. But I've only been really active on Wikipedia these past 3 days. Maybe the precedent already exists...will381796 05:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the precedent is quite the opposite. Celebrity children are generally deleted or merged with their parents. JoshuaZ 03:22, 23 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. The WP:V and WP:NOT concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this appears to have the necessary backing in sources. Mangojuice^talk 06:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Responsibility[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, this appears to be vanity. Most of this user's edits are somehow related to either Elliott Frankl or Viktor Frankl. -- JamesTeterenko 04:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fopkins | Talk 06:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with Viktor Frankl article NOT PER NOM but as not YET notable enough to warrent its own article, In fact the assertion by User:JamesTeterenko that it should be deleted BECAUSE it relates to Viktor Frankl sounds very anti-semitic to me.--LackOfMotivation 07:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's not what James meant at all. He's saying that the editor who created this article also tends to also edit the article for Elliot Frankl (though I couldn't find any indication the creator edited the other article). Please assume good faith on the part of other editors and be careful about accusations of anti-semitism. Even if you are correct, such an accusation may start an unnecessary fight.--Kchase T 08:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • LackOfMotivation is an obvious sock of the creator of the article. I have blocked him indefinitely as a sock of an indefinitely banned user. -- JamesTeterenko 14:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for you not finding evidence of him editing the Elliott Frankl page, it is because there are two t's in his first name. See here. -- JamesTeterenko 14:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep There's enough news coverage of this statue to do an NPOV article and indicate notability, especially since the picture in this PDF indicates building has started. Merging doesn't make much sense since a building should generally be a separate article from it's creator.--Kchase T 08:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted below, that news is all a year old. The statue in the picture appears to be about 12-15 feet tall. That isn't the 300 foot statue being discussed. -- JamesTeterenko 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. I was expecting those hands to be the top of a statue of a person similar to Lady Liberty. In fact, they are just a scaled mock up of the full statue. I changed the strength of my vote, but I don't have any problem with keeping an article for a planned building if there are reliable sources.--Kchase T 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if only because the concept is bizarre. I want a Statue of Tyranny, myself. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article can be written if/when the statue is reality (or at least, close to reality). --Nlu (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kchase. There seems to be historical significance if the idea has been brewing since the 70s, much like The Gates. SliceNYC 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, buildings don't have to be built to be notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but saying that the statue is planned to be built is not a prediction, it's a fact. Recury 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you verify that fact? With the web site not having been updated in the last year, I am sceptical that there is a realistic plan for it to be erected in 2010. -- JamesTeterenko 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am skeptical too, but there are enough verifiable news stories on the plans to pass WP:V. How realistic the plans are is not relevant to whether the article should be kept/deleted. Recury 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Give it some time and AGF. The statue's starting to show some promise, according to the article. If cities are already bidding for it, then it means the plan's underway.--Ed^{talk c E} 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I did more research on this statue. The website is very impressive, as is their movie that you can watch. However, they are still calling for "$300 million in donations" on thier website; their website has not been updated in over a year now; and frankly, I couldn't find any credible sources that say that this statue is becoming a reality. The article has two external links, one of which is to the foundation site, and the other is to an interview conducted almost a year ago. The article has no references to any of its claims to being notable. I searched for some, but came up empty. I did not see any information confirming that there are any cities bidding for it, much less four. I did read one of the articles which stated that there were four cities "being considered". This is much different than cities actually bidding/competing for the statue. The latest article, published a year ago, states that a site would be secured in the next 12 months. I don't see any updates. Fopkins | Talk 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but change the article's wording to indicate that it might not materialise. There are a number of articles (X-Seed 4000, Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid, etc) on buildings less likely to be constructed. I don't consider it crystal-balling to describe a major project with lots of press coverage. Garrepi 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just as the next Olympics (2008? I can't keep track of years) are notable because there is press coverage on the plans, this statue is notable. I agree with Garrepi, however, that the wording should be changed to reflect the possibility that the statue will not be built. Srose (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - seems to be enough verifiable information out there to establish this as a real plan and not a crystal ball prediction. There also seems to be some historic context behind it as well, but would prefer to see more flesh to the article if anyone knowledgable enough on the subject can help it. Arkyan 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Unencyclopedic vanity/promo article for a non-notable project. KleenupKrew 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:V - article states four cities are "competing" to be the site of the statue; point of fact, the statute's own website says four sites are being reviewed for the statue, and that after the statue is built on private property, it will be offered to the nearest municipality. WP is also not a newspaper, and this article appears to pander to the fundraising efforts for the statue. And the bottomline remains, the statue isn't built yet, and unlike the Olympics which seems to have a rich and confirmed history of occurring every so often, the statue is still just a vision in my crystal ball. Come back after it's built. Tychocat 08:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Garrepi --69.158.183.223 02:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• User is most likely a VaughanWatch sock. -- JamesTeterenko 22:21, 26 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, author request. - Bobet 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VaultLine[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP criteria; prod tagged removed without comment; less than 700 Google hits, no news articles OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This article should not be deleted since it is listing the existance of a payment provider. Thank you.Rbrown@mydtx.com 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:CORP, WP:VSCA. Viridae^Talk 04:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK After reading WP:CORP and WP:VSCA I feel sufficently put in my place. Can I just delete the page now?Rbrown@mydtx.com 04:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the page with ((db-author)), since the author (you) has requested deletion. That should take care of it.--Kchase T 08:43, 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 09:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Force Fed Records[edit]

Non-notable record label, only a few years old with only a few bands.--Zxcvbnm 04:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since this article and this business fail WP:CORP. I couldn't find a single independent published work about the company, much less multiple. -- MyWikiBiz 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — nn - none of the bands have wikipedia articles (which are wikilinked to this), so they musn't be notable enough, therefore the label itself must fail WP:MUSIC Martinp23 10:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The label's site essentially asserts that it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, and the article itself makes no assertion of notability. --Craig Stuntz 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom--Ed^{talk c E} 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, looks like vanity. Ned Wilbury 20:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. per nom. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. *drew 01:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulys sub[edit]

Non-notable minor regional sub chain. Article was proposed for deletion but then deprodded by an anonymous editor. —C.Fred (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - NN. Fopkins | Talk 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under what criteria would it be speedy-able? It's a company and not a person/group, so the criteria for no assertion of notability isn't applicable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider this speedy-able under A7. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I include NN companies in this category. Only if the notability is questionable or disputed would I take it to AfD. But again, please, correct me if I'm wrong. Fopkins | Talk 05:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one were to stick to the wording of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, with regard to A7's statement of, "real person, group of people, band, or club", it's not speediable as a company is not exactly a "group of people" or a "club". There's a lot of leeway in tagging things speedy under the various criteria. For instance, G4 specifically states "This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions...", but I see it used for to tag things that were speedy deleted, but, I don't really care and leave it there. Some other people do care and the tag vanishes. In short, it all depends on the person that comes by next and sees the tag and whether or not they've read WP:SNOW. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how one wishes to play around with the wording, A7 definitely does not apply to corporations. There have been attempts to expand it to cover companies, but they have not been successful yet. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Eminently non-notable, and note that the original version of the article was created solely for disparagement purposes. Kiscica 05:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable outside local community. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — nn and no sources Martinp23 10:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete local interest only Dlyons493 Talk 12:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at regular speed as business fails WP:CORP.--Isotope23 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable local restaurant chain. JIP | Talk 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. non notable. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:35, 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 09:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Green Dragon[edit]

Original research and an indiscriminate collection of info whose notability is not established. The three paragraphs in this article are each talking about a different dragon, with no apparent connection between them aside from what the author of the article wanted to see. wikipediatrix 04:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I do see the connection the author was trying to make, it is very much original research. JoshuaZ 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN freethinker jargon. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge into The Demon-Haunted World - what little traction this concept has is a footnote of the Dragon in Carl Sagan's Garage. bd2412 T 10:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — nn Martinp23 10:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete author is clearly referring to "invisible dragon breathing heatless fire" in Carl's garage, and has got a little mixed up. Dev920 14:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the pertinent information into the Invisible_pink_unicorn article. The phrase has enough currency that someone might possibly come look it up here, but does not have enough substance to warrant its own article outside of a mention on IPU. Arkyan 19:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm seeing little "currency" in the term with only 43 distinct Ghits, mostly WP mirrors. I am also unimpressed by the reference to Carl Sagan which takes the phrase out of context, taking this as a failure of WP:V. Tychocat 08:58, 21 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 and redirect. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DR ABC[edit]

As somebody with an advanced knowledge of emergency medicine, I have never heard of DR ABC. The medical acronym ABC is much more common and the one used in modern first aid courses. In addition, the simplification and walkthrough of the article is not consistant with wikipedia's enclopedia goal. St.isaac 04:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep this acronym is what is taught in first aid courses by the the ambulance services across Australia. Hell I have a little card with it on in my wallet. Viridae^Talk 04:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as how-to page/dict def. -- Koffieyahoo 05:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under that criteria, ABC (first aid) should be deleted too. Neither page is a there as a how to giude, just an explanation of cencept. As I stated DRABC is very widely taught in Australia. (I would not be averse to a merge and redirect by the way, as long as DRABC was differentiated from ABCDE) Viridae^Talk 05:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct, I think that ABC (first aid) should be deleted as well, but I also think that we should let this AfD run to completion first. -- Koffieyahoo 05:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well all of the first aid articles are like that for some reason. We just started a wikiproject to fix it. However, my point was that DR ABC isn't different enough from ABC to merit an article, or even mention. Its just a regional thing. I guess we could include a line in ABC, just like we do for ABCD or ABCDE. But still delete. St.isaac 06:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why are we here then? Why not simply merge and redirect? -- Koffieyahoo 06:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both ABC (first aid) and DR ABC into Mnemonic or acrostic. These pages seem to be where this type of information is found, and I could not find any other mnemonics or acrostics with dedicated pages. Fopkins | Talk 06:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Mnemonic with all of the other examples. --Daniel Olsen 06:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to ABC (first aid). This is a procedure as well as a mnemonic; it doesn't belong with a list of ways to remember the names of the planets and so on. —Celithemis 07:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with ABC (first aid) per Celithemis. Mnemonic is already chock full of examples, and this doesn't appear to be an acrostic.--Kchase T 08:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge — to ABC (first aid) - I was always taught DR ABC (in UK), and since we have ABC (first aid), there's no reason for DR ABC to be deleted. Martinp23 09:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Standard first aid procedure as taught by, for exampel St John Ambulance Australia. JPD (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to ABC (first aid). Doctor Bruno 10:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am a member of St. John's Ambulance and it's the first thing they teach you in any of their resuscitation courses. Dev920 15:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to ABC (first aid). This information does not require a stand-alone article, but I think ABC (first aid) does. I would definitely recommend addiing the information to that page as an alternate. --Siradia 21:41, 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 Keep. No need to drag this on any further. SynergeticMaggot 06:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Pink Unicorn[edit]

Non-notable in-joke among some Usenet members. Only 682 unique Google hits, and there are even duplicates among those. (Incidentally, two of the three "references" in the article do not mention the IPU at all, and the third is a personal Geocities site of one of the members of this quaint little club.) wikipediatrix 04:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This is not an in-joke, but is referenced in print media and books (Example ike Rolling Uphill: Realizing the Honesty of Atheism

by Dianna Narciso) May very well need clean-up and improved references.

• Strong keep. There are numerous references outside usenet. This Google search turned up 55,200 results. The article can use some cleanup as far as cites are concerned, though I would disagree on the NPOV criticisms, but that doesn't make an entry non-notable. Wyatt Riot 05:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you start advancing thru those 55,200 results, you'll see that the listing hits a dead end here, after 715 unique hits (It was 682 earlier). In other words, the other 54,000+ hits are from these same sources. Therefore, the IPU has only 715 different sources mentioning it on Google (and it's far less than 715 when you subtract the many mirrors of the Wikipedia article itself). wikipediatrix 05:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand how Google unique hits works. First google finds roughly how many pages contain the term (55,200). Then it takes the first thousand and runs the uniqueness filter on those thousand pages. So of the first one thousand hits 715 are unique. The other 54,200 pages contain more unique pages. For a very rough guesstimate of all unique pages calculate thusly: 55200 * (715 / 1000) =~ 39,000 unique pages (i.e. assume that 71,5% of those 55,200 are unique). Weregerbil 08:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, to test this: search for "Microsoft". At this time google finds 191 unique hits. I think it's safe to say more than 191 web pages in the world mention Microsoft. Weregerbil 08:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or search for "White House". At this time Google only finds 821 unique hits. [7] Google's uniqueness test is highly unreliable. Dionyseus 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really unreliable, it just works in a certain way that is easy to misunderstand. Weregerbil 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Wyatt Riot. More references are probably needed, but the existence of a large number of external links suggests that more references can probably be found. I know it doesn't count for anything, but the fact that this "quaint little club" has crossed my radar - and I'm hardly even aware of what Usenet is - would say that it's gone a bit further than the nominator would have thought. BigHaz 05:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as per above. Dionyseus 06:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This article is just as real and verifiable as the pages about God. That is its point. If it gets deleted, it would only follow logic to get rid of pages concerning other gods.

• Strong Keep - This article is well referenced and verifiable. --Daniel Olsen 06:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per BigHaz - I have also come across IPUists without having any idea of what Usenet is; such cultural concepts tend to spread through the Internet, so the article might be more visited in the future. I myself have embraced the IPU concept, and this article has been very informative to me. I believe that Google count is not the only standard by which articles should be kept or deleted; after all this is an encyclopedia, not a mere factbook of popular ideas/objects. — Bill the Greek 08:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — per Wyatt Riot Martinp23 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's keep this pink and more furry variant of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Unfortunately, things like this are notable. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 11:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If wikipediatrix's claim regarding the references is correct, since this isn't a vote and no one has provided other sources, an admin with some chutzpah could close this as "delete" no matter how many people say keep. A large number of google hits where there might be sources doesn't mean anything. It says in giant black letters on the verifiability policy that "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." So chop-chop, get to work. - brenneman ^{L} 11:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point. I've already added a direct reference to IPU from the alt.atheism FAQ, and I'll be adding more cites shortly. Wyatt Riot 13:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That very page makes the excellent point that "Because alt.athe ism is a n unmoderated newsgroup, it tends to be high in volume and high in noise." This does not qualify as a reliable source. - brenneman ^{L} 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep -- Quite a few web sites seem to think that this is a "notable" enough phenomenon to try to make money selling the IPU bumper stickers.Atlant 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OBVIOUS WilyD 13:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is so obvious about it? wikipediatrix 13:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh - referenced (thought not completely) article on a widespread cultural phenomenon of encyclopaedic interest. WilyD 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Speedy Keep. I have never used that phrase before, this is NOT a NN in-joke, at all. J Milburn 13:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - wikipediatrix (who incidentally has broken wikipedia's rules in choosing her username, implying some kind of official position) has given no reason whatsoever why the article should be deleted. I get 48,000 google hits, but thats not the point. It is not an 'in joke', it is a serious device for the discussion of the logical arguments behind religious belief, and the modern day evolution of earlier concepts such as Bertrand Russells teapot. I propose that wikipediatrix should be deleted. Poujeaux 13:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hey - no need for personal attacks - whilst one may be hard pressed to figure out how Wikipediatrix remained unaware of this all this time, no need to assume bad faith - it's just a mistake on her part, and we all make mistakes. WilyD 13:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking the nominator is a sure sign of desperation. I stand by my comments, and note that many of the "Keep" voters are not giving valid policy-based reasons for their vote. I remain unconvinced of this subject's notability. wikipediatrix 13:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may be surprised to discover that notability isn't a criterion for deletion. The article passes WP:V, WP:SPAM, WP:HOAX, WP:COPYVIO and WP:VAIN, the only policies or guidelines that are really appropriate for discussing a potential deletion to this article. WilyD 13:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it passes WP:V, because WP:V states "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." What do we have? A couple of Usenet items (not valid sources), a Geocities personal site (not a valid source), a Carl Sagan book that does not mention the IPU, and some near-nonsense text called " Red Iguana Dawn" that also does not mention the IPU. wikipediatrix 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alt-atheism.org is an okay source, without checking too much I think one or two of the external links are okay sources as well. Not a real big deal, given the overwhelming concensus to keep here. WilyD 14:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It very much is a big deal - consensus on a micro-forum like this cannot override one our most core policies. Currently the sum total of citations in reliable sources appears to be "The campers said they like the intellectual games, including an "invisible unicorn" exercise. Campers must try to prove that imaginary unicorns - as a metaphor for God - don't exist." from Cincinnati.Com  » The Enquirer  » Local news. - brenneman ^{L} 02:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that you are making it a bigger deal than it actually is, Aaron. The article is better cited than most of Wikipedia's articles. You earlier mentioned that you fear a rogue administrator with some "chutzpah" may delete the article despite the 100% concensus to keep the article, well you really shouldn't fear that because that's what we have the Deletion Review process for, to protect articles from mistakes and rogue administrators.Dionyseus 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Speedy Keep. Notable and wikipediaworthy. --Billpg 13:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong speedy keep per all above. Easily meets the "I heard about this before I saw it on Wikipedia" test. Smerdis of Tlön 14:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Have seen used and used myself regularly in discussion with fundie Christians. May have started out as Usenet joke, but can probably be found on every religion discussion board on teh net, somewhere. Definitely notable. Dev920 14:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, a well-established meme and pro-atheist argument. JIP | Talk 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has a longer and more widespread pedigree than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I've actually purchased an IPU pendant myself, to ward off atheist vampires with. Bryan 15:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well-known internet and pop-culture phenomenon that passes the policies noted by WilyD. Agent 86 17:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no such thing as invisible pink unicorns. This is patent nonsense. Keep. Sorry to offend HMIP (MPBUHFAE). I just had a revelation: She doesn't exist in the traditional sense, but definitely a longstanding, widespread icon in online atheist culture. This is the kind of stuff no paper encyclopedia will cover, but is fine in Wikipedia. Rohirok 18:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep for all the reasons mentioned above. Verifiable, notable, and worth inclusion. Arkyan 19:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dianna Narciso also writes about belief in IPUs in her book Like rolling uphill. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-16t19:33z
• Keep: For every reason mentioned above. A long-standing icon in the online atheist community, and quite notable. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only 682 google hits? This is small? reference.com books; these seem like credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Somerset219 02:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psst, your first link is just a wikipedia mirror. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly my point, it's a verifiable resource that took wikipedias already written article and used it, which means they obviously found it verifiable... Somerset219 04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm... that's not usually how mirrors work, mate. Robotforaday 05:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No stupider than Jesus --Xrblsnggt 02:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ok now, that wasn't necessary. Rohirok 03:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Perhaps somebody could make a useful policy "Wikipedia is not for newsgroup in-jokes, no matter amusing members of those newsgroups think they are". Robotforaday 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It started out as a joke in the early 90's, but has since then been widely used by atheists as a mind tool to remind people how illogical the "you have no proof that it does not exist therefore it exists" argument. Dionyseus 03:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment jumping the shark is also a catchphrase, and could be considered an "inside joke". however, it's historical and encyclopedic, just like IPU. Somerset219 04:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per many others, but is all this bickering really necessary? Jacqui^★ 04:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment probably not, but does it matter? Somerset219 04:51, 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 AdamBiswanger1 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brightscore[edit]

Prod and Prod2 removed without explanation, so bringing here. This appears to be an ad for a product that apparently gets 977 Google hits [8], but looks like blatant advertising. I don't see any outside coverage of note for the product. Doesn't seem to meet much of any guidelines. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "______" and remove all information. AdamBiswanger1 05:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. -- Koffieyahoo 05:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Koffieyahoo. It appears to be advertising. Fopkins | Talk 06:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — spam Martinp23 09:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Looks like an ad. Ned Wilbury 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. will381796 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin close this as a successful deletion? will381796 01:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, but I'll take the liberty of doing so. AdamBiswanger1 02:11, 21 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 per bad faith nomination. SynergeticMaggot 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grynner[edit]

Irrelevant no name "musician" delete ASAP

• Speedy keep, bad faith nomination in retaliation against User:NawlinWiki for deletion recommendation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sgha. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , Not up to Wikipedia standards for a wikipedia article.>Remove double vote by nominator.

• Speedy Keep per Kinu and his disregard for policy per personal attack on my talk page. Nothing is wrong with the article, it is simply a stub, possibly in need of attention from the cleanup taskforce. --Draicone ^(talk) 00:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing this incomplete nomination page for possibility of speedy keep. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — per Draicone Martinp23 10:05, 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 at 500 miles per hour. Kimchi.sg 08:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 401[edit]

This Highway is not important/is not well known. Wikipedia should only have articles for WELL KNOWN roads. Besides, this road is not used too much Johnmatting 05:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep to quote the article: "It is the longest 400-Series Highway in Ontario, and among the busiest in the world." -- Koffieyahoo 05:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, one of the most important/well-known roads in Ontario and Canada. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to speedy keep, from the nominator's contribution history, this appears to be some sort of ill-conceived trolling. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - This is a joke, right? --Daniel Olsen 06:36, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big three (Oakland A's Pitchers)[edit]

Insufficiently unique nomenclature and insufficient historical significance even just in the baseball circles. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Three people left my school this year who'd been there more than 100 years and joked as being called the Big Three - I don't see an article for them on WP. Not really notable enough on its own, but could be merged into the names of the respective members of the "big 3". Martinp23 09:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - info belongs at individuals' articles, and possibly the team article. JPD (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination Carax 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Worth a mention in the pitchers' and team's articles, but the term wasn't used widely enough and, frankly, the pitchers weren't so successful that there's historical significance. SliceNYC 15:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created the article and thought I should explain my thoughts. In the Bay Area at least, the term seemed widely used enough. I heard it often enough on the news, in the paper, and on espn that it stuck with me. Also, I can't think of any other dominant groupings of MLB players in this decade. Kwondoleeza
• Delete Information is legitimate, but it doesn't really deserve its own article. An (unlinked) mention on the Big three disambiguation page is probably good enough. Zagalejo 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even within Baseball circle the reference doesn't have notability to go beyond this current decade, namely because the lack of any lasting legacy. Only Zito won a Cy Young and the Big 3 never even got the A's to the World Series. Agne 07:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Big Three is a part of the A's history and it deserves an article, just like The Killer B's for the Astros. I don't see any reason to delete this article. However, it should be expanded to describe their performances, statistics and effect on the team's success. Canjth 21:19 18 August 2006

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 —Mets501 (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janan Sawa[edit]

Appears to assert insufficient notability. Delete unless notability shown during discussion. --Nlu (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. I tried to find his album 'Nohadra' at amazon.com and didn't find it. Dionyseus 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some links. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — notability not asserted asrequired by WP:MUSIC - it is up to the article to prove its notability Martinp23 10:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP This is silly. He is THE most famous Assyrian musician yet he can't have an article on wiki? If he can't have an article, then that means there cannot be any Assyrian musician articles on wiki? Until Assyrian music becomes famous in the world? If you go through amazon you will realise that there is no/little albums of Assyrian music. It is not our fault that Assyrian music is not popular enough around the world for it to be on amazon. 3,200 GOOGLE hits is not enough? I didn't know wiki music article must go through the amazon test? Chaldean 12:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly, if he's "the most famous Assyrian musician," he should be kept. The question is, is he? If he is, there has to be some objective way to show that he is. --

Nlu (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to find any other Assyrian musician with that amount of Google hits. Just try and see what happens. See if anybody else comes close to 3,200. You ask "is he the most famous" - well buddy you would not know if you weren't part of our community. This is what ticks me about wiki. People take actions on things they dont know about. Instead of going for a delete, dont you think it would make sence asking one of us if indeed he is one of the famous? You obviously lack knowledge about the subject, so why do you care as much to a point that makes you take actions? Chaldean 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion is not fact. Can you show verifiability? That is a requirement on Wikipedia. If you disagree with Wikipedia's principles, maybe you shouldn't be here. --

Your little mind is not getting the point. Maybe it is you who should not be here, since you seem to be all about distruction then creation. Chaldean 14:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems notable enough. Please remember that internet sites as amazon.com and google.com do reflect a systemic bias. Bertilvidet 13:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Its wikipedia's loss if the article is deleted.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bertil. —Khoikhoi 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. But more sources and clean would be nice. Nickieee 07:44, 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.