< February 23	February 25 >

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninya Loeppky[edit]

Non-notable, likely a hoax article. Only other contribution of the creator has been to add nonsense to Northern Exposure page Jtmichcock 19:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This looks like a ((db-attack)) article, if the subject is a real person.  (aeropagitica)  20:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --KimvdLinde 22:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--James 23:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn bio. --Jay(Reply) 23:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 03:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is indeed a real person, not sure if this qualifies as an attack, but not notable. Grandmasterka 05:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --Cymsdale 13:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. dbtfz^talk 02:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied as G4 (recreation of deleted material). (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USAA an unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange[edit]

Delete POV fork of semi-protected USAA. - choster 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all POV forks. This should be a CSD. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork
• Delete per JiFish. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete attack page. Get a blog.--Isotope23 16:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G4 recreation of deleted material. I put a ((db)) tag on it. --Aaron 16:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cougartown[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable website. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. Previously ((prod))ed by me. Delete. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The school might be notable in itself, but not its unofficial webforum. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the Beach Boys are considered notable, their school, Hawthorne High, should be notable. --Don Di Tomasso, HHS Class of 1975 (Comment actually placed by user:69.234.158.44 --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib))

• Delete Alexa rank of 800,168. Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  00:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Aaron 00:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Doesn't seem to be notable enough or important enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. Does not meet WP:WEB. — TheKMan^talk 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kinu --Ruby 01:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --James 01:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Website is valuable resource for history of Hawthorne, California, especially of items related to surf culture, car culture, and 60's pop culture vis-a-vis notable musical HHS alums, the Beach Boys. (Viz. non-trivial ref. Daily Breeze, etc., now deleted but in Google cache). One of the most active high school-centric sites on the web, nearly a decade old, the site has 700 pages of feedback from its vibrant user community, services alums spanning five decades, and also has served a notable role in establishing and preserving landmarks within the school and the community. Alexa ranking is poor because site users generally do not fit (decidedly narrow, I must say) demographic of those using Alexa toolbar; also, many of the heaviest users are on Powerbooks. Having deletion discussion on Feb 24, George Harrison's birthday, is an additional cruel irony to those who know Hawthorne High alumna and occasional site correspondent Olivia Harrison, HHS '78, George's widow.--Joseph Mailander

Yes but that website would be important to only one town. Jedi6 07:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete Actually, it is an important site around the world. See the SLANGS listing in the notable section. The site is also very significant to the several towns in the South Bay area and is frequented by alumni from other schools in the area. The remaining Beach Boys also visit the site. --Don Di Tomasso. HHS Class of 1975. (Comment actually placed by user:69.234.158.44 --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib))
• Delete per nom. Bobby1011 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Jedi6 07:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn website. --Terence Ong 12:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel that Alexa rank of 800,168 is notable enough. Considering the existence about 100 million (figure may be higher-correct me if I am wrong) websites in the internet, it is a relatively popular site. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe so, but it does mean it's less popular than 800,000 other websites. If we had an article for each of them, we'd have a indiscriminate collection of information. Besides, it doesn't meet WP:WEB. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JiFish.--Isotope23 16:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe some clarification is in order. Cougartown focuses on Hawthorne High School but it is dedicated to discussion and preservation of the history and culture of the entire region. There are many Courgartown participants from the surrounding communities that make up the greater South Bay and Airport area of Los Angeles (Inglewood, Manhattan Beach, Westchester, etc.). Many of these people worked (or their parents worked) in the aerospace/national defense industry (e.g., Boeing, Northrup, Rockwell, TRW) This site captures "oral" histories similar to those captured by Studs Terkel and other writers devoted to reconstructing history and culture from the vantage point of ordinary people. Wikipeida Entry for Studs Terkel The Cougartown reader is able to trace the evolution of the national and Los Angeles area media from the 1950s through the present (radio, television, etc). Events, significant and ordinary, are viewed through the prism of generations of a working class community. Literally, there is no other site on the internet that can convey this unique, generation spanning perspective. To my way of thinking, this makes Cougartown not just significant but important. W1P 16:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Alexa is just too low. --Tone 17:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's hard to believe people put any credibility in Alexa numbers. I don't see any reference whatsoever to basing deletion on Alexa numbers in the WP:WEB. Secondly, there's good reason for that: Alexa is incompatible with Mozilla and Safari browsers, which account for a higher percentage of traffic in certain communities. I've been actively using this site for eight years, and every time I've used it, it's had three-figure traffic that day at very minimum. I have no stake in the matter other than as a longtime user of both Wikipedia and the site in question, but this seems to me a generational thing. Because forty-, fifty-, and sixtysomething people use a site more than younger people doesn't mean the site's less valuable or even less tech-vibrant. This site's navigation and posting is made entry-level deliberately, to encourage the maximum participation across the widest swath of people, technophile and technophobe, web-sophisticate and newbie alike. It's really a remarkable environment, very unique. Aside: if you're measuring your own blog rankings by Alexa, you're blowing your time. Joseph Mailander
  • Double vote: this user has already expressed desire to keep above. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment:I thought this wasn't a "vote" whether to keep the site but rather a discussion of the relative merits of keeping the site. That means the "double vote" accusation is irrelevant (not to mention your "second" contribution to the discussion)W1P 19:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • What he means is your comment had "do not delete" in bold writing before it. This is potentally confusing, because a users final opinion should be presented this way. I careless closing admin may have mistaken you for two people, User:Kinu was simply making sure that wasn't the case. Anyway, you have corrected it now, thanks. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 16:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is not a vote it is a gathering of opinions for consensus, but it is Extremely bad form to bold preface a statement with opinions like Keep, Delete, or Do Not Delete multiple times and could be construed as an attempt to confuse the closing admin into believing this is an opinion from a separate person. Assume good WP:FAITH thought because User:Joseph_mailander is a new user and probably was not aware of that tidbit of wiki-ettiquette. Also, Kinu was simply commenting. You can express comments, replies, etc as many times as you want (and it's nice to preface them with comment), but rendering multiple opinions is not looked upon kindly.--Isotope23 21:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If we had an article on Hawthorne High School in California, I would suggest merging with that article. This site is probably a useful link with Hawthorne, California but this isn't notable enough against WP:WEB to warrant an article of its own. Capitalistroadster 18:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thank you for the suggestion. That is a good option. Yes, I notice that there is no article on Hawthorne High School in Wikipedia.Hawthorne and Beach Boys are two possible options. However, I hope there is an ultimate decision to keep the site. --Don Di Tomasso HHS 75

• Do not Delete. As an official Alumnus of Hawthorne High , I wish to offer my opinion on the deletion of Cougartown from your encyclopedia. I strongly caution you against such an illogical & hasty action. The idea of deletion brings to mind the thought of censure and other forms of social control. To delete a factual reference to an actual website suggests there is fear of truth. We are not seeking a referendum to place Cougartown on Wikipedia; someone has already established that it already exists. An attempted deletion is an attempt to re-write history, or conceal an established fact. The senior graphic illustrator/draftsman at the Keck Observatory in Hawaii regularly references Cougartown because of its powerful value as a social tool. Although he attended Pasadena High School he finds Cougartown to be an accurate and important website.
  
  Where will you draw the line in regard to "deletion"? History when studied truthfully, accurately and completely is priceless, but a watered down, whitewashed & censured version of history is the product of fear. More than this is the very idea of what Wikipedia is designed and created to accomplish, the dissemination of information. To delete the reference to CougarTown in Wikipedia contradicts the core principle what it’s "founders" set out to accomplish. My I remind you that allowing someone to edit is altogether different than allowing anyone to delete! I would like to erase some things I do not like but it is far more important in this free society to equally regard opposing ideas. I have the notion that those who wish to delete Cougartown from Wikipedia may be attempting to cleanse their little cyber-world in order to create a perfect cyber-Eden. I suggest you leave well enough alone in the matter of deleting Cougartown, remember the moral of the Aesop's fable of Sour Grapes? Those wishing to delete Cougartown may simply be upset they did not attend such a "prestigious" run of the mill middle class high school that remains part of history. Thank You for your time.--- Neil LarsonHHS 71
  

  • Comment. The post from Neil Larson was sent at his request due to posting difficulties. The content can be verified by e-mailing him at fxr@netbypass.net. --Don Di Tomasso HHS 75

  • Comment: Another day, another diatribe about censorship, revisionism, elitism, fascism, etc., etc. Instead of expending energy by making blind accusations against other editors of Wikipedia and its guidelines, you should try supporting your argument to keep this page with facts that are both verifiable and establish importance (for example, per WP:WEB). --Kinu ^t/_c 00:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. ...a tad self-righteous perhaps? Additionally, it would be helpful if you add more meaning to your terms: facts and importance. Perhaps, then we would not miss the mark. --Di Tomas.

• Delete Importance of site to certain people does not merit an article. --Jay(Reply) 23:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. ...but that can be stated about any site. Additionally, site importance is only one consideration. --Don Di Tomasso HHS 75
  • Comment: Anecdotal evidence of importance does not prove conclusively general importance. On the other hand, such anecdotal evidence suggests that the site might have more importance than has been suggested by some in this thread. None of the dissenters have addressed my earlier point about Cougartown constituting a unique source for "social history" Cougartown's "importance" on that basis(verifiable by reading the variety of entries on the site), standing alone, combined with the anecdotal evidence of "importance" to "certain people" argues strongly in favor of retention. W1P 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: The action seems to have cooled on this discussion. However, I would like to point out for the record that my two comments discussing the importance of Cougartown as a site for "social history" stand unrebutted.W1P
    • I don't know what you mean by "social history", but that doesn't appear to be a criteria of WP:WEB. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It has to do with the "importance" criteron. I explained social history with the link to Studs Terkel. W1P 06:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As JiFish has tried to explain, "importance" is in and of itself not a criterion of WP:WEB. As a website, this topic is subject to different inclusion metrics. The comparison to Studs Terkel (who most certainly meets WP:BIO) is moot, as people and websites have different standards. The three criterion are listed on that page. Please read and explain how this site meets them, and we will consider that information. Also, your assertion that "importance" to "certain people" argues strongly in favor of retention is false; most if not all websites listed on AfD are obviously important to some people, but whether they are encyclopedically includable (again, if they meet WP:WEB) is crucial. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You missed the point of the reference to Studs Terkel. So let me try again: Studs Terkel revolutionized historical scholarship by writing "social history" Cougartown captures "social history" I was obviously not comparing the Cougartown website to any Studs Terkel entry as a "person" or a "website." You've taken my "assertion that "importance" to "certain people" argues strongly in favor of retention out of context. For your convenience, let me repeat the full context (which was in response to the "delete" vote cast by Jay who said (paraphrase) that importance to some people does not justify rentention):

"Anecdotal evidence of importance does not prove conclusively general importance. On the other hand, such anecdotal evidence suggests that the site might have more importance than has been suggested by some in this thread. None of the dissenters have addressed my earlier point about Cougartown constituting a unique source for "social history" Cougartown's "importance" on that basis(verifiable by reading the variety of entries on the site), standing alone, combined with the anecdotal evidence of "importance" to "certain people" argues strongly in favor of retention." Thus my assertion regarding "importance" to "some people" was COMBINED with an assertion of a more generalized "importance" of the site as a unique repository of "social history" This discussion was directed to the "importance" criteria only. I am not qualified to address the other aspects of "includability" but to this admittedly uneducated point of view, it seems like several others have addressed those elements effectively. W1P 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ‘--James 23:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Hawthorne High School article if anyone thinks it worth their while to create one before termination of this AfD; and if nobody does, then Delete this.Staffelde 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. WP:WEB applies. Stifle 15:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: Since Wikipedia is not a repository of external links and since Cougartown is a primary source of social history and not a "repository of external links," this means that Cougartown should not be deleted. W1P
    • This argument makes no sense at all. Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Not "we delete articles about websites that are a repository of external links." --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • JiFish, can you try to explain what you are stating in a different way? You lost me. Dondt1 16:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll try my best. User:W1P suggests that since Cougartown is not a collection of external links, it's article should be kept. This is not what the policy User:Stifle is quoting means. We don't care about the content of the site, so long as it meets WP:WEB. User:Stifle is saying Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. i.e. We should only have articles about websites that meet the inclusion criteria. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • JiFish, are you stating that Wikipedia does not permit external links in any area other than a page sectioned marked off as "External Links"? If so, is this an absolute requirement, a suggestion or a matter of percentage? Dondt1 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, that's not what I am saying at all. I'll try one last time. We don't have articles about websites just because the site exists. They must meet an inclusion criteria. The reason why: Wikipedia is an encyclopidia, not a collection of external links. The content of the article isn't in dispute here. (Although, what you said is broadly true, it's just not the issue. For more information, see WP:EL.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you, JiFish. I understand now. Dondt1 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sorry if my earlier replies were confusing. Explaining things isn't my strong-point. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No problem, JiFish. Thanks for the explanation. Dondt1 16:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My argument makes no sense at all because it was a response to the assertion of Stifle that made no sense to me. It seems that "external links" means something different in this domain than it does in other contexts. W1P 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (blanked by author). — Feb. 24, '06 [07:25] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

The K-Man Show[edit]

Appears to be non-notable pod-cast. No assertion of notability. Previously ((prod))ed by user:Aaron for the same reason. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You all suck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolbow (talk • contribs)

Please, no personal attacks. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo sorry tough guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolbow (talk • contribs)

• Delete. Vanity page by User:Kolbow, who appears to be a producer (I think) of this show. After a search, given that it debuted last month, I feel safe in saying that it's non-notable as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Aaron 00:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn vanity page.--Jersey Devil 00:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Also, its website has no Alexa ranking, and a Google search brings up only 22 unique hits. (Should I also mention the irony? :P) — TheKMan^talk 01:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Go slap a speedy G7 tag on the article, I dare you. *grin* --Aaron 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most podcasts are not notable --Ruby 01:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom--James 01:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. dbtfz^talk 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bobby1011 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sorry everyone for wasting all of your time. Hopefully the article is fully deleted now...  :..( Kolbow 07:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANTs Data Server[edit]

Deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANTs Data Server, this was then recreated and thusly speedied. In the past, it has been a redirect to the article deleted by Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ANTs_Software. Deletion review asked for a review of this deletion. See here for the DRV debate. -Splash^talk 00:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and lock the title as to stop its future recreation. Bobby1011 03:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per Bobby. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Per nom ILovePlankton 20:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per Bobby. --KimvdLinde 22:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, clearly. Kuru ^talk 17:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete any article I cannot understand. What is it? An ad? A technical spec? A progamming method? I don't care - just get rid of it. AndyJones 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AndyJones. Stifle 15:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to "x in New Zealand", that is, 1965 in New Zealand, 1966 in New Zealand, 1967 in New Zealand, etc. Content has already been merged from 1965 to 1995. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tui_award_winners_1965[edit]

• Delete/Merge Author is in the process of creating 40 separate articles, one for each year, regarding the New_Zealand_Music_Awards. All are brief, some as little as 1 line long, and from what I can tell there is no way they'll ever get any longer. All should be deleted/merged with New_Zealand_Music_Awards. I'm gonna bundle a few of them into this to make the point, but I'm not gonna put all 40 up for deletion (they're not even all made yet) until we discuss this. Xyzzyplugh 00:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating Tui_award_winners_1966 and Tui_award_winners_1967 --Xyzzyplugh 00:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say merge into Tui Awards, but that article doesn't even exist. So either create Tui Awards and merge all individual by-year articles into one, or else delete them all as non-assertions of notability. --Aaron 00:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Changing vote: Merge all individual year articles into New Zealand Music Awards per Xyzzyplugh. --Aaron 00:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New Zealand Music Awards are apparently known as the Tui's, so the article is there for them to be merged into. --Xyzzyplugh 00:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Duh, I didn't notice that. I just created Tui Awards as a redirect to New Zealand Music Awards and have changed my vote above accordingly. --Aaron 00:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Xyzzyplugh. 40 separate articles is nonsensical. Camillus (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As it happens the name is a little misleading as well. The awards were originally the Loxene awards, then the RATA awards, then the RIANZ awards, then the Tuis. The later articles should be a lot longer than one line, but keeping them is notthe best solution nonetheless. Deleteion is not a good option, since these are New Zealand's premier music industry awards. There are two reasonable possibilities here: Three options: 1) Merge into one long article; 2) Rename to cover all of New Zealand's music awards, on a year-by-year basis. Adding in the APRA silver scrolls and NEBOA Music Entertainer of the Year awards would lengthen the articles considerably; 3) Rename them further still to "Music in New Zealand in 19xx", allowing far more information, with timeline, awards, top singles and albums etc. Ovrall, I'd prefer option 3. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is a music section in articles like 2005 in New Zealand, seems a logical place to add the year by year data. We can split music section out later if it gets big enough for each year. - SimonLyall 12:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 11:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Xyzzyplugh. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename to 1965 in New Zealand music or similar as per Grutness' 3rd suggestion. This allows the article to expand. The later years in music will have more content, and the set of 2003 in New Zealand articles don't go back earlier than 2003, so including music in those articles is not such a good idea. The existing Year in New Zealand articles should of course reference the Year in New Zealand music articles.-gadfium 19:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 1965 in New Zealand etc, per Simon Lyall below.-gadfium 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep-As per Grutness' 3rd suggestion Brian | (Talk) 20:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So, 40 different articles on years in new zealand music. Why only go back to 1965, then? Why not stubs reaching back to the 1800's or 1700's? Should we then have hundreds of thousands of similar articles, so that every country has one for each year reaching back for centuries? Unless there is actual significant content to put in these xxxx in New Zealand music articles, I can't see the logic in having them. --Xyzzyplugh 00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge- I am intending to create the "xxxx in New Zealand" (See Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board ) going back to 1900 in the next few days. Looking at Category:2002 in music the only country I can see is 2002 in British music and the British industry is 100 times the size of NZs. I would vote for merging these into the "xxxx in New Zealand" articles. - SimonLyall 00:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of xxxx in New Zealand music, or even The 1960s in New Zealand music if people hate short articles that much. Kappa 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge either into xxxx in New Zealand or one page (New Zealand Music Awards?) for the awards. xxxx in New Zealand music is excessive and not supported by the precedent of other countries. Ziggurat 23:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have now copied the content of the articles into the music section of 1965 in New Zealand through 1995 in New Zealand - SimonLyall 03:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with The Elder Scrolls: Arena. To demonstrate that AfD is not a replacement for the merge template, I'm going to stick the merge template in lieu of making the merge. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ria Silmane[edit]

Character in fictional software game. Probably should be merged into The Elder Scrolls: Arena. In addition, there is an entire Category:The Elder Scrolls characters, in which most of the articles are themselves are about individual game characters. Merge those into the appropriate Elder Scrolls articles, as well? Aaron 00:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge --Hetar 02:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. Bobby1011 03:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge. I don't like AfD being used in-lieu of the merge templates! --Karnesky 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge someplace other than the main article. Kappa 14:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hidalgo[edit]

Nominated for deletion a few minutes ago by Arundhati bakshi as self promotion. However, Arundhati made a minor error with one of the ((afd)) tags, preventing the article from being listed here properly. I'm just putting everything in the proper place. Aaron 00:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: Might be notable if it had more information. --Hetar 02:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Page is suspected vanity, as it is by User:Ahidalgo. No vote at the moment pending further research into his notability, bearing in mind that a keep would require a cleanup regardless. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Auto-biographies are discouraged, but he seems to real and has been in interviews for prominent business magazines. Bobby1011 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm in no position to slam Wikipedian autobio. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 12:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity page. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 14:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kinu. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and for violation of WP:AUTO.--Isotope23 16:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hidalgo is notable because he is the CEO of a NASDAQ-traded company. The article, however, is a poorly-written stub and needs to Add Content.  Cdcon  22:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable bio. --Jay(Reply) 23:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being CEO of a company denotes notability --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Anyone can make a one-man company and denote himself the CEO. That doesn't, in itself, make him notable.  Cdcon  18:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or turn into an article about the company. Kappa 14:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verified and notability established. Stifle 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 05:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Shaws Asylum[edit]

I think it's preferable to merge this information in with the main Kerrang! 105.2 article. Smileyrepublic 00:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Merge into Kerrang! 105.2 per nomination.--Dakota ~ ° 01:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Kerrang! 105.2. Doesn't merit its own page, but it seems reasonable to merge it into the article about its radio station. — TheKMan^talk 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge. Why list on AfD if you don't want it deleted? --Karnesky 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per TheKMan. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, then, you don't need AFD for this. Stifle 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As above. thispersonis 23:28, 28 Februrary 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 of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventure House[edit]

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

• SAVE How is this an advertisement? There is not money being made or fame to be conjured. Adventure House is already established.

Non-notable subject matter, appears to be a vanity article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wikipedia is not the phone book. Bobby1011 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Save: The Adventure House IS notable to all the adventure community at both JMU and in Harrisonburg. Information is relavent to the outdoor offerings of the area.
• Delete James 01:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable advertisement. --Hetar 02:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Terence Ong 12:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Save important part of James Madison area enviromental conservation and Access Fund. Notable for local contributions. Dubiousandrew 18:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Save This house is very well known in Harrisonburg and James Madison Community
• Delete Non-notable outside of the immediate community that it serves. Could the above unsigned comments please be signed by their respective authors?  (aeropagitica)  19:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SAVE Strothra
• Merge with James Madison University and wikify. Alba 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with James Madison University. The Adventure House is not globally important. Consensus on most-famous-building-on-some-university-campus AfDs usually end up being merge or delete.  Cdcon  22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being familiar with Harrisonburg, let me add this: Based on the address, this is not a building on JMU's campus at all, but instead the location of a private residence well to the northwest of the JMU campus, and the only likely connection between it and JMU are that JMU students likely lease space in the house. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Save Don't even start that wikipedia only includes entries that are globally important. That is a BLATANT lie. A 'yard of beer' is not globally important, but it has an undisputed entry. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective and everyone attempting to delete is biased because they are not part of a rich community of outdoor adventures within Harrisonburg. Please be fair to all entries and not just the ones you agree with. I appreciate it. 67.23.53.26 23:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)warnerhw[reply]
• Speedy delete. nn. --Jay(Reply) 23:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN and looks like an ad. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable building. Not afraid to call out the puppetry that seems to be going on here. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Alba. Staffelde 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely non-notable ad. Kuru ^talk 02:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BAI, and flood of sock/meatpuppets. You can always tell them by the flood of "Do not delete" or "Save" comments. Stifle 16:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Premiership footballers in the News of the World[edit]

Non-encyclopedic article about newspaper article about non-notable event. Was prodded, tag deleted without comment. Weregerbil 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem, in itself, notable. Bobby1011 01:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - are we to have articles about everything that pops up in the scandal sheets? Alleged "Gay footballers" aren't even mentioned as there's apparently an injunction out against the "paper". Camillus (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless. --Aaron 01:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 02:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion How about a move to Wikinews? Bobby1011 03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is rumorcruft a word????Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is now! Delete as rumourcruft. ergot 16:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; WP:NOT a media-monitor blog. Daniel Case 04:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete; ditto - this isn't even a notable news story -what effect does the sexuality of footballers have on the world?. --Notjarvis 12:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable, nonsense. Enough of all this rumours. --Terence Ong 13:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unproven tabloid gossip about persons unknown does not belong here. Calsicol 13:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable tabloid gossip.  (aeropagitica)  13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT ComputerJoe 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete something for the tabloids --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as rather useless and unecyclopedic. CaveatLector 00:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There may be a worthy article behind this, but this one is too specific and not useful. Grandmasterka 05:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like gossip, but also too ultra-specific to be of use. --SpencerTC 22:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not for gossip pages, reprinting random newspaper gossip columns, and idle speculation about the sexual orientation of anybody. --Wingsandsword 04:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Zappone[edit]

Vanity, see WP:BIO --M@thwiz2020 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Story seems to check out. He gets 15,000 google hits, many of which concern Kennedy. Bobby1011 01:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I'm fairly certain this was posted by someone close to Mr. Zappone, but I'm willing to wait and see if it can be turned into something useful. Slap a wikification tag on it and see what happens. Somebody can always nominate it again in a month. --djrobgordon 02:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Self-promotion is NOT what Wikipedia is about MiracleMat 04:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Makes a pretty good case for notability. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks notable. --Terence Ong 13:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems a little vain, nothing really noteworthy here. Yanksox 13:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like a vanity page to me. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 13:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable for 15,000 google hits. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I do not get 15,000 hits when I do a more specific search [1]. Interesting, but based on what I see he does not pass WP:BIO. PJM 15:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Look for the bit about photographers in WP:BIO. Pretty sure this fits. - Jaysus Chris 20:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think he fits that criterion. Has he written in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more? On the other hand, he is locally famous, and is currently a somewhat well-known personality in the broadcast industry. I can't conclusively say that he is not notable.  Cdcon  22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Junior famous. --Jay(Reply) 23:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pro tem - borderline, but may turn out OK if developed. Staffelde 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Wikify; meets standards of notability. --Cymsdale 13:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lugermania[edit]

Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic, not relevant -- Robster2001 01:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Bobby1011 01:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is nonsense. --James 01:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If internet forums are generally considered non-notable, then brief events that occurr on an individual forums are even less so. --Hetar 02:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsenes.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (Not a vote) User EZ Does It blanked this vote at 05:00 UTC, 24 February 2006. I reverted the blanking. -- Robster2001 13:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete falls well below my notability threshold for memes.--Isotope23 16:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Utter nonsense --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense as above. Kuru ^talk 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense hoax. Stifle 16:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foglebeatz[edit]

Non-notable song by non-notable musician (the article on the musician was previously deleted by AfD--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamez). Delete. JeremyA 01:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in all likelihood a hoax. --djrobgordon 02:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 05:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax, nn. --Terence Ong 13:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A hoax. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn per above. Kuru ^talk 17:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. --Bill 01:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 04:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frame Of Mind[edit]

Appears to fail WP:Music. They have toured regionally, but not nationally. They don't appear to be signed, as they sell their records off their website, with no indication of a label or availability from other sources. Delete. Joel7687 01:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete blatant advertising. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:Music violation.  (aeropagitica)  14:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An advert. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertisement. NN --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was, after due consideration of all comments and evidence, keep. – ABCD^e✉ 09:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neglected Mario Characters[edit]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. SPKx 03:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I am a fan of the webcomic, but it is Not notable vanity. (see comments) Delete. -Sinatra Fonzarelli 02:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored large parts of the comments to the talk page to aid readability and so that people browsing the full list can skip it easily. This is not an assertion that the moved comments were less valid and I would urge reading them before you make a vote or comment. Stifle 16:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that this article wreaks of vanity. It doesn't matter how long it is, it's still vanity in the end. Delete, please. -Pandaman87 04:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After a google search turning up 148,000 results it seems notable enought to me... --Amazon10x 02:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, searching all of the words (in other words, searching for every website that contains "neglected", "mario", and "characters", or websites that contain some of those words and link to websites that contain some of those words) comes up with 148,000 results, but searching the exact phrase "Neglected Mario Characters" gets only 766 hits. (Compare that to the exact phrase "Penny Arcade", which gets about 4 million, and the exact phrases "Cat and Girl" and "Perry Bible Fellowship", which get about 300,000) -Sinatra Fonzarelli 02:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only claim that this is an encyclopedic topic is the unverified, unreferenced claim that this "is the first known sprite comic." Lack of reliable sources makes this unsuitable for an encyclopedia article, and means topic does not meet WP:WEB notability guidelines for websites. -- Dragonfiend 04:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this looks like replay of AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Cultural_References_on_Neglected_Mario_Characters. IMO, those hours spent on Wikipedia could make a dedicated website, with no need to constantly watch against vandals and to struggle with deletionists. Pavel Vozenilek 04:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The content of this article and List_of_Cultural_References_on_Neglected_Mario_Characters would make an excellent section of the webpage that is the subject of this article. But it is not encyclopedic, and obsessive, nerdy deletionists such as myself will continue to argue that point.
• Keep Phil Sandifer 04:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be aware that the closing admin may, at his or her discretion, disregard recomendations without rational. You may refer to Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion where in addition to always explain your reasoning it makes plain that Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy and that majority voting is not the determining factor. Thank you.
    brenneman^{T}{L} 05:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh go away. The two sides of the debate are adequately summarized. I have indicated which side I agree with. Do I really need to waste keystrokes restating the facts? Phil Sandifer 12:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for asking, it's a common mistake to not understand what we're actually doing here. If you want the closing admin to take your recomendation into consideration, yes you must be explicit. You might, for instance, be basing you "keep" on it being the first sprite comic. Then if evidence comes up that it's not, and you don't revisit the discussion, we wouldn't know that the rational no longer applied. It takes very little extra effort to say why you want to keep, and far less to say "keep per foo" than to say that you won't do so. Thanks! - brenneman^{T}{L} 13:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:DICK Phil Sandifer 03:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know brenneman is only trying to help your vote count. This is not a vote but rather a discussion and if you want your vote to count you should at least explicity support someone else's opinion (by say, typing per SPKx or whomever you agree with. Manmonk 19:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless evidence provided that this comic has been mentioned in unprejudiced sources as the first sprite comic and that this does in fact have historical relevence, this does not comply with out policies on verifiability. Inclusion of this article in the absence of such would violate our policy on bias as there exist many many other similar webcomics that are not included. As there is clear consensus on notability demonstrated on AfD and in the various guidelines that support it, including all other webcomics is clearly not a viable way to redress this bias. There is no other conclusion than but that this should be deleted based upon the facts in evidence.
  brenneman^{T}{L} 05:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think there are sources which cite this as the first web-comic. T. Campbell, whose webcomics history is coming in the summer, has cited it as such,[2] as does the article at 1UP, [3]. 1UP, going by it's entry here, seems to be a reliable source. On that basis, I urge you to reconsider your vote, Aaron. Hiding talk 20:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The absolute only thing going for it is the 1UP article; everything else goes against it. NC fails the popularity test miserably, no matter how you want to quantify it. Its article fails miserably at being anything but a mess (and resilient to cleanup tags; the one I added early on got removed without comment a day later). Nifboy 06:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Alexa rank 196,439. Looks to me like just another Mario fansite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Brenn. Marskell 11:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Google score and Alexa rank. All available evidence shows this has failed to make much of an impact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It does indeed read like a fan-site rather than an encyclopædia article, and the arguments for its non-notability (abive passim) are convincing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & Cleanup on grounds of historical interest. Yes, the article is too long and too detailed, but someone with the appropriate time and knowledge of the subject can easily trim it. Neglected Characters is still, as far as anyone knows for sure, the first widespread (even if not originally notable) sprite comic, and it certainly has grown to notability (even if not major notability) by now. Just fix the page (and shorten it. a lot.) and all will be well. CaptHayfever 14:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a standard Wikipedia policy for trimming articles? Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Policy, not so much. Guideline, yes. CaptHayfever 20:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CaptHayfever. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. It is notable as the first sprite comic, and has inspired many spinoffs. GeoWeasel, a flash toon, was originally a sprite comic, and its motto was "the best thing to happen to sprite comics since NC." Google scores and Alexa ranks are not the only determiners of notability, guys. This article passes all three of Wikipedia's tests for inclusion. The sources are verifiable (read the comic and the 1UP article), the research is not original, and even if it is vanity, it can be edited down. The last thing I want Wikipedia to do is to claim that Bob and George was the first sprite comic and ignore NC completely. Its forum contains roughly 5000 members (the VGF forum contains 15000 members, and it's very possible that most of its members came to VGF via NC)Crazyswordsman 16:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard of GeoWeasel. It's not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Although the sources are verifiable, (although the source to the only claim to notability, that it was the first sprite comic, is absent) the research is not original (although earlier edits of the article read like advertizements) and it may not technically be vanity, (the guy who runs the website that hosts the comic made it instead of the author of the comic) it is not notable according to these guidelines. I will need empirical evidence of 5000 members of this webcomic's forum, and even then, when a comic like Achewood gets several hundred thousand mentions in passing on Google, I really don't see how that helps your case.Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those guidelines are merely suggestions, and are the opinion of those forming the page (it says so at the top of the page), not policy. And if you're so concerned about these matters, why don't you go look for verification yourself? Crazyswordsman 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're being a tad immature. Wikipedia is an attempt at a verifiable, usable encyclopedia. By creating an article about a comic that's only notability is the shaky clame that it innovated a minor style of webcomic, than you need to back this claim up. Being a Wikipedia editor is about verifiability. The burden of proof is on you. If you do not wish to take responsibility for the burden of proof, stop arguing against the deletion of the article.Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No personal attacks, please. Stifle 16:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this is one of those rare cases where longevity does amount to notability. The article does need a lot of work, and if it doesn't get fixed in the next month or so, and it came up for AfD again, my vote would change to delete. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean longevity in the sense of the age of the webcomic or longevity in the sense of the length of the article? I agree with you if it's the former, but disagree if it's the latter.Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about both? Crazyswordsman 18:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Length of an article does not a good article make. Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Longevity of the comic itself. Its article could use a good trim. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 20:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If Bob and George and 8-Bit Theatre are allowed to have in-depth character anylisis pages (which could be considered fancruft in many eyes, not mine, though), then NC definitely deserves an article. WP:NOT paper. Crazyswordsman 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bob and George and 8-Bit Theatre don't really deserve them either. Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Improve Notability or Delete. By standard WP policy, this should be deleted: it simply has no claim to global importance. On the other hand, from a casual user point of view, I appeciate the ability to be able to view details about a popular comic on wikipedia. It would be helpful to include links to anything that might suggest that the comic is popular.  Cdcon  22:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed vote. Could not find any evidence of notability, after thorough searching.  Cdcon  23:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and comment) "No claim to global importance"!? It was the 'beginning' of sprite comics! I may not know exactly what 'global' importance is, but I'd say it has a lot of normal importance!LIII 00:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Kinda pointless to say, but Jay, you actually edited it twice as many times as you said.LIII 00:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • No one has yet to prove that it was the first sprite comic, or that it was the inspiration for subsequent sprite comics. Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neglected Characters is a relatively unclever, unamusing and sloppily made webcomic. It's claims of being the first sprite-comic are entirely unsubstantiated, and to my knowledge this is the only pillar it is standing on to claim it deserves a space in an encylopedia. The article was as sloppily made as the comic strip. Remove. -- Griffinfuhrer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.90.69 (talk • contribs) .
  • You're personal opinion on something does not prove it does or does not belong here. I hate probably about fifty percent of what is on here. Do you see me nominating stuff like that for deletion? No. Stop being such an elitist. Crazyswordsman 02:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now now, just because it's bad, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Otherwise, I'd purge the Top 40 list from Wikipedia right now. However, it's also painfully unnotable, and should be deleted. Sinatra Fonzarelli
  • I never said it should be deleted just because it's bad. I inserted my personal opinion on the comic itself as well as my reason why it should be removed; the only claim to notability is the fact that it is allegedly "The First Sprite Comic", in an encylopedia, there should always be a plethora of facts to back up any claim made. There is absolutely none for NC Comics, so it should be removed. -- Griffinfuhrer
• Comment In other words, you're saying it is in accordance with the deletion policy...because you hate it? LIII 01:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Sinatra Fonzarelli -- Zero314 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.31.9 (talk • contribs) .

• Delete per the sentiment that its only reasonable claim (being the first sprite comic) is shaky at best. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge into sprite comics. While it may be the first known sprite comic, it does not deserve an entire article. Manmonk 01:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how is the claim that NC came first shaky? If you think it is, go around the internet and find a sprite comic that was started before NC. I'm sure you won't find any that are still in production today. Crazyswordsman 02:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the burden of proof on us?Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is the first sprite comic ever, aswell as a very good comic. remember that if this is deleted, it will eventually be forgotten, which is bad because it links to many other good sites. plus it not only a comic website, it also is like the meeting place for Nintendo Fans. Besides, it is not a dead site. it was last updated 10 days ago. Keep, I beg you. -User:Tannotron the Real 010:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole internet isn't going to forget this supposedly "monumental" comic if one Wikipedia article is deleted. Besides, there's a reference to it in the sprite comic article and it's supposedly fully replicated on Comixpedia anyways. Pandaman87 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to be rude, but isn't expression of concern that without this article, this webcomic will go forgotten somewhat of an admission that this webcomic is not very well-known? Regardless, you seem to misunderstand the cause of Wikipedia. This might be a useful link for you. Especially this, this, and this. Just because you enjoy something, even profoundly, doesn't make it encyclopedic. I don't have to make a Wikipedia article about the wonderful feeling I get when I walk through Old High Street, hang out with old friends at my beloved stomping grounds, or watch that one cell-phone commercial I really like for some reason to appreciate them. Just because an article brings Mario fans together, doesn't mean it is encyclopedic.Sinatra Fonzarelli 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only claim to notability, "first known sprite comic" is unproven. Pagrashtak 02:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, the above Archive link shows that NC existed before Bob & George, which was previously believed to be the first sprite comic. Now unless someone can show us an older sprite comic, the claim is true. CaptHayfever 02:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I stated above, the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion. I believe your claim that NC existed before Bob & George, but the claim is not that NC existed before Bob & George; the claim is that NC existed before all other sprite comics. Proving that NC existed before one particular sprite comic does not prove that it is the first. Pagrashtak 15:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, you start looking at one end of the Internet; I'll start looking at the other. The reason we "Keep"ers keep bringing up B&G is that it was called the first sprite comic until people saw the NC timestamps. What's it called when you're before the "first"? The real first. If someone finds an earlier sprite comic, then I very well might change my tune, but until then, this is the kind of claim that can stand in good faith until it is disproven. Besides that, NC is easily the longest-running sprite comic, as any that may have been started before it are completely lost and could safely be presumed dead. CaptHayfever 19:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As you can see, we have has a long and heated discussion about the merits of whether or not NC should have a Wikipedia article. I say there have been good arguements on both sides. Yes, NC has not and probably will not be as notable a spite comic as Bob and George and 8-bit Theatre. However, you can't ignore the fact that NC is, if not the first, then at least the longest running sprite comic. When I first created the NC wiki page last May, I only wrote it as a short little history of NC (look at the archived page in the history for proof). I never intended all the bells and whistles that were added in the next 9 months. I did not ask for there to be a separate page created for cultural references. I did not ask for a wikiquote page. These were added by fans of NC, who felt like they should be part of the article. Me and CaptHayfever have been trying to clean up the page, so it will be a good median between the simple article I started with and the overblown article it had become. Yeah, there are better webcomics out there, however NC still has a history can not be ignored. Please consider this when decided to keep or delete the article. - SPKx 05:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When people want to know about something, they should have a Wikipedia article to look at. It was apparently the first sprite comic and it is apparently popular enough to start a debate far too long. Shouldn't that be enough for an article?Glyph Phoenix 10:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no way to say this without being rude, so I apologize if this sounds too frank: The vast majority of the argument for keeping the article is being done by SPKx (the webmaster of the site the comic is hosted on) and Crazyswordsman, his friend. with the occasional contribution from meatpuppets, including the creator of the comic. Part of the length of this discussion page is due to my engaging, if not provocing them, in a flame war, (and I was uncivil at times) and for that I apologize. I just want to illustrate that there is not a mandate. There's a close-knit group of fans of this unnotable comic. And it's not just people wanting to know about something. There are other websites that serve as directories, excellent ones. On Wikipedia, the subject must be encyclopedically (is that a word?) notable.Sinatra Fonzarelli 00:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a meatpuppet now? Interesting. As long as that gauntlet is thrown down, I'm going to explain that not only do I not work for SMBHQ and am not close to any of the staff, but I've read NC maybe a grand total of 3 times in my life, all of which were long after I had begun hearing about it. CaptHayfever 05:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize for overlooking you in my generalization. Your contributions to this page have been constructive. Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd like to point out List of Cultural References on Neglected Mario Characters, I know it's been mentioned already, but I'd like to make it explicit. Neglected Mario Characters has an entire article about it's "cultural references", every strip that mentions Spock or Cheesy poofs has it's own particular mantion and link. It was not deleted following the nomination, quite wrongly in my opnion, someone should take a serious look at that. I might nominate it later, but if the comic itself is barely notable, then a link farm to it is obviously not. - Hahnchen 17:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the seperate reference list is considerably excessive. I, for one, certainly wouldn't oppose an AfD on that. CaptHayfever 19:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I say the site should get to keep a scaled down version of the article. Something branching off an article made for sprite comics in general. - Alph 1:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  This actually left by User:71.40.191.2 . --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a link repository. I don't see much indication of significance. Friday (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This shows how pathetically easy it is to establish that NC goes back at least to October, 1999, and there is no reason to doubt the claim on that page, by the originator of the comic, that July 1, 1998 is the date "when NC was first given to my total control." The arguments based on unverifiability seem very strained indeed. While comparisons with Bob and George seem also to be overegging the pudding (the latter has been continuously sprite-drawn since April 1, 2000, with only 17 missing days), it does seem that NC featured regular sprite-based strips before 2000. --Tony Sidaway 17:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, rides on the back of an extremely dubious claim to notability - that it was the first sprite comic, which has no reliable source and relies on original research such as that done by Tony Sidaway above - how do we know there isn't another sprite-based comic, possibly drawn before NMC, that we haven't checked on archive.org? Because the voters here say no such comic existed, ever? We're writing an encyclopaedia and we're not qualified to make those sort of assertions. --Malthusian (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Do I have this right? You are actually claiming that the act of verification of a fact by obtaining information from archive.org is original research? --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  All it verifies is that NMC is older than Sprite Webcomics X, Y and Z, for any given value of X Y and Z which you ran through archive.org. For us to call NMC the oldest sprite comic would require us to know that there is no Webcomic W which is even older. Now, if an independent, authoritative source, the sort we usually insist on when it comes to non-fancruft, says that there is no Webcomic W and NMC is the oldest sprite comic, then it becomes a verified fact, but when a Wikipedian presents himself as the source by saying there is no Webcomic W, that's OR. --Malthusian (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Until an alleged "Webcomic W" is found, you have absolutly no proof. LIII 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing vote to abstain, as the sources given elsewhere seem reliable. I'm still not convinced that being the first webcomic to copy and paste sprites from somewhere is a particuarly great artistic achievement, hence not a keep. --Malthusian (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: even if it's true, so what?! To me, the main claim to fame sees to be that it's a website that's been up for several years. I don't personally see that this makes it significant. Friday (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on Sinatra Fonzarelli's analysis. In particular, I find his comparison of webcomics of various levels of notability persuasive. Nandesuka 18:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The thing I keep turning over in my mind is this: We've got sources which state the strip is the first sprite comic:[4], [5]. Now in an article on Sprite comics we've got to note that. So we create a red link if we delete this. Now sure, the article can redirect, but there's enough sourcable info here to have a perfect stub. I agree the article as it stands needs a heavy rewrite, but that isn't the debate. The debate is, should there be an article on this strip? If we take it as given that mention of it should be made in an article on Sprite comics, then I think it's taken as read that we should have an article, it's Wikipedia:Build the web, isn't it? I'd add I find the nominator's blog entry regarding this troubling too. [6]. Hiding talk 20:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is troubling about it?Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: The Wikipedia article was created on May 24 2005 saying "Nelected Mario Characters (also known as NC) is the world's first (if it wasn't the first, then it was at least the first well documented) sprite-based web comic." On Nov 7 2005 1up.com says "Neglected Mario Characters, the first sprite comic." This doesn't look trustworthy. Isn't it possible Wikipedia was there source? That promotional claims made in wikipedia arrticles are being picked up by other web sites? HotWings 21:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That line about NC being the first sprite comic was on NC's about page long before the wikipedia page was created (in fact, a good bit the original text of the wiki article was paraphrased from this page). - SPKx 00:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this verifiable, referenced, notable, encyclopedic, and in all other ways worthy article ➥the Epopt 01:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability can be debated, but you can't claim that this article is referenced, at least not the version at which I'm currently looking. Pagrashtak 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a number of references in the external links. --Tony Sidaway 07:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • External links are by definition not references. That needs to be fixed. Pagrashtak 07:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for nominator: I would like to know why proof that NMC was the first sprite comic is still being demanded in the face of this edit. —Phil | Talk 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never demanded proof that NMC was the first sprite comic. I demanded that defenders of the article offer proof that NMC was the first sprite comic to those on this page who demanded it. And they did. I think they've offered sufficient proof that it is the first sprite comic. Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: my ability to AGF is getting bent all out of shape by this nomination. —Phil | Talk 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this mean that you're specifically not adressing the question of this article? Or is there an already stated rational that you're agreeing to? If it were presumed, for example, that was that this was the first sprite comic and it was then found not to be the closing admin might lend less weight to your recomendatins. For this reason it's always a good ides to explain yourself more rather than less. - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't want to vote, but I have some thoughts:
  1. Being the first sprite based comic would seem to confer a certain de facto notability on the subject.
  2. Can we deem something notable ourselves in this way, by looking through the internet archive and comparing dates? Is this original research? I'm not sure what I think about that, but it is a point that stands out to me. How does this mesh with the idea of direct observation?
  3. Is it reasonable to expect that if the strip is truly notable, we would have some decent sources to inform us about it? At present we seem to have only a brief mention in a VG website article about the early history of webcomics. I am confident that, if we decided to keep this article, this would probably be one of the very least notable topics we have officially approved for inclusion on Wikipedia.
  4. I am impressed by the commitment involved in writing the article and fighting to defend it. Sometimes, when I am on the borderline between voting to keep or delete, that will push me just slightly onto the keep side. I figure: you know, I really don't want to be wrong about this, if we have somebody here wanting to develop our content on this subject, and committed to it. I would at least like to put off the decision for a while, or let people on the article talk page reach some decision on their own. Everyking 10:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Probably fancruft, but seems just barely notable. Stifle 16:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Archive.org evidence that it predated both Bob and George and 8-Bit Theater, I'm changing my vote to Weak Keep, Rewrite or Merge with Sprite Comic. Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - However, I would still be in favour of deleting the Cultural References page, deleting the Wikiquotes page, and scaling down the article significantly.Sinatra Fonzarelli 19:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I took the liberty of rewriting the article to a size that I felt appropriate for the subject. I feel that an article of this size could be kept. I apologize to anyone I have upset, as I know that dealing with me can be stressful.
    • I liked the paragraph you wrote, however I restored the rest of the article, since I believe we should try to find a median insteading doing one of the two extremes (very short or very long) - SPKx 23:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NC Article then and NC Article now. You have to agree that alot of progress in compressing the page had been made. - SPKx 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not sure how strong the precedent is, or even if it counts, but List_of_Cultural_References_on_Neglected_Mario_Characters was not deleted. If this page was deleted, wouldn't it be a bit odd for that one to still exist? This website is, in my eyes, more of a pioneer than some super-notable site these days. Back in the day it could have had the notability you site; however now this is in historical interest. The page could always be compressed a little, though. (Edit: I guess that page was changed to a redirect. Regardless, my vote still stands.) --Metal Man88 06:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: being the first work of any genre is notable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, if we agree that that cannot be demonstrated as per WP:V and WP:NOR you'll support delete, right?
    brenneman^{T}{L} 01:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mr Brenneman, it's already established verifiably and through a process very much not original research. I would hope the closing admin will take a note of that. Webcomics historian T. Campbell has cited it as the first, as has a column on a major publishing companies website. It seems redundant not to note those claims, which are verifiable and are not original research. Since those claims are citable, it is now up to those seeking to disprove those claims to cite otherwise. The burden of proof is with those disputing the sources. Any decision on those sources should be made consensually, not by a closing admin. No-one as yet has addressed those sources in great detail. Hiding talk 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have no idea how notable or nonnotable this is, not being a big webcomic buff (I collect comic books, the old fashioned kind printed on paper, but haven't looked very much at the Web-based kind). I'm rather frustrated with the degree of histrionics that occur whenever a webcomic with a fervent fan following gets nominated for deletion, which often spills over to the wikien-l mailing list as well as discussion pages within Wikipedia itself. People, it's not the end of the world if this gets deleted, or kept. The AfD process makes mistakes sometimes, but the eventualist position holds that, in the long run, notable stuff will get articles and non-notable stuff will fade away, no matter what happens in the short run. There's no need to get all pouty and start screaming about how you're starting a forked site and abandoning Wikipedia... go ahead and start specialized sites on different topics if you want, but Wikipedia will stay around no matter what happens elsewhere, and bashing and sniping at it does no productive good. *Dan T.* 01:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Great job with the cleanup. I don't mind if the article gets deleted anymore, (although I prefer it be kept, thus my vote stays at keep). However, if it IS deleted, I'd like the Sprite comic page to still contain links to the Comixpedia article and the site itself. Crazyswordsman 04:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As much as I would like to keep this discussion going on forever, this AfD has been up for nearly a week now. I think we should be getting to a verdict soon. - SPKx 21:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The page has been changed so much it wouldn't matter if it was deleted. LIII 22:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morass[edit]

This is making my eyes hurt. This all seems to come down to the "first" thing, so could we have the evidence laid out nice and neat here? - brenneman^{T}{L} 21:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that this is the first

• 1up.com (which is owned and operated by Ziff Davis Media, the media conglomerate behind the videogame magazines Computer Gaming World, Electronic Gaming Monthly, and Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine) posted an article on webcomics, and mentions NC as the first sprite comic. [7] - SPKx 00:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that this is not the first

Other evidence that this is the first

• Started in 1998[8] - SPKx 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• T. Campbell posts "BOB AND GEORGE wasn't the first sprite comic. That honor goes to Neglected Mario Characters. B&G was much more of a trendsetter, though." [9] - SPKx 00:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other evidence that this is not the first

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Bobby1011 24.02.2006

sposbag[edit]

Neologism; turns up 0 results on google Amazon10x 02:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GamerSpace[edit]

Classic example of vanitisement. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As advert.Bobby1011 03:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ads.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ads.--James 04:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 04:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advert -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 10:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ad ComputerJoe 12:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An advert. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, none-too-subtle ad. Kuru ^talk 02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant advertisement --Wingsandsword 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 15:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cell church[edit]

- Was entirely original research, is now just plain blanked. Someone defined the neologism "cell church" as a small closely knit group of worshippers who don't meet in real churches and then had a sort of manifesto on how cell churches can get more power. Cyde Weys 03:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have improved a bit since the nomination. Now it's just a potential neologism, but considering that there's a large website using that very term linked in the EL section, and Google gives 103 000 hits, I don't think we can call it that, either. This article should probably be kept. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: 100k ghits on english google 1 result on google Define [10] 307 google groups. [11] Nothing on google news. [12] some hits on google local [13]. It seems to be a legit phrase. Don't forget: Notability is a guideline and not a policy. ---J.Smith 04:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My understanding is that "cell church" or "cell system" refers to a plan for church growth invented by the S. Korean minister David Yonggi Cho, and since exported to other Christian groups worldwide; it involves having lay leaders conduct prayer and Bible studies in their homes to "feed" converts gained by social networking into the main church body. This is notable, and the article seems to be a start. Smerdis of Tlön 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per fuddlemark. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per J.Smith. PJM 17:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. Reason: Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Bobby1011 24.02.2006

Kyou Kara Maou![edit]

Makes no assertion of notability. Appears to be nonsense, but see for yourself. Bobby1011 03:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lurel- sorry.... I'm trying to get as much as I can on it... please don't delete it and I assure you that I will update some more on a day when I have enough time! (^^;;;;)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChartNexus[edit]

Ad. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Do we have a speedy for blatant advertising yet?  RasputinAXP  c 03:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. A Google search finds a smattering of mentions but nothing looking like an independent source.[14] Due to the lack of reliable sources on the subject, there is nothing to indicate that this advertisement could be changed into a usable article. --Allen3 ^talk 03:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. As per Rasputin; yeah, why isn't there a speedy tag for advertizing? Bobby1011 03:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising, non-notable software. WP:SOFTWARE refers.  (aeropagitica)  14:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--James 23:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 19:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lewis Spencer[edit]

Autobiographical, see contributions from 207.4.199.250, he identifies himeself in this edit Cacophony 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep WP:AUTO is not policy. Writing your own bio is discouraged, but this article has successfully avoided POV statements and the like, and notablility is well established. Bobby1011 03:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a Grammy-winning songwriter, he merits an article under WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 04:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It looks like it's worth keeping. Maybe the language could be cleaned up. Yanksox 13:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Grammy-winning songwriter. Sax player for Otis Redding. Vanity policy is quite explicit; "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion." Nomination shows either ignorance of applicable policy or bad faith. Monicasdude 14:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Myles Long 17:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. Autobiographical articles are discouraged for two reasons. The first is that the subject often doesn't meet the standards of notability and verifiabilty required of articles. Secondly, subjects of articles often have difficulty in maintaining a NPOV about themselves. He meets our music notability guidelines and the article is NPOV. The article could be improved with more about the music that makes him notable. Capitalistroadster 21:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject belongs in Wikipedia. Anyone who doesn't like it because of its origin, should edit or rewrite it. Logophile 10:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing wrong with autobiographies, as long as they're well-written and of notable people. Stifle 16:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9-11: The Road to Tyranny[edit]

Merge and Redirect to Alex Jones (journalist) non-notable stub; any info should be merged back into Alex Jones (journalist). Page was created to prop up user Striver's push for a POV tag on September 11, 2001 attacks Mmx1 03:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete per nom. --Aaron 03:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Though there is not much information to merge. Bobby1011 04:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep Tons of Ghits. [15]. Also, it has an entry on IMDB. Can't find any info on sales numbers, but it seems like there is a lot of controversy about it. I perhaps disagree with the reasoning, but it looks legit. ---J.Smith 05:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's not legit, but there's hardly any information for it to stand on its own. Every other Alex Jones movie has a two-sentence blurb on the Alex Jones page. Don't see why this is any different. --Mmx1 05:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve per J. Smith. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It should be allowed to grow --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if there is no information about the subject of the article and it's a recent event, it's clearly not notable to warrant an article in the first place. Dbchip 07:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real movie. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Merge I'd love to see enough information on the movie to qualify for its own article, but until then... --Talain 11:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real movie, notable creator, made lots of controversies, great many hits... If this is going, what does it need to keep a movie stub? Or is it that we dont allow movie stubs? Or maybe, we should delete the { {movie-stub)) template? Could you please tell me how this is not a legit movie stub? --Striver 11:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not IMDB. Stub is never meant to be a permanent status. In this case, it's far more useful to have it point to Alex Jones and give it the context of a series from that documentary maker than have an essentially empty stub. As the sparse IMDB site indicates, there's very little promise for the article on its own. As it stands it's just pushing the agenda of the film. --Mmx1 14:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, based on the account of the article being created yesterday, and still being a stub, you argue it will NEVER be anyting more than a stub, and should be delete. Have i understood you correctly? --Striver 15:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no media coverage of this film whatsoever, no Ghits other than people pushing the film, no critical third-party discussion of it or its contents, and short of transcribing the film (and using WP as Alex Jones' soapbox), what would go in this article? Clarifying nomination to Merge and Redirect to Alex Jones. I'm not saying this movie shouldn't exist on WP, but it doesn't have enough encyclopedic content for any more than a stub. Better as redirect to Alex Jones. If someone wants to work on it I can see an argument for spinning off Documentaries of Alex Jones from that page. --Mmx1 16:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Striver. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I've added a cleanup tag, because as it stands this is not an article (it's a timeline of a film), it's not sourced, it's not NPOV. No opinion right now since this article was just started, but I'm going to revisit this article in 30 days or so (assuming it is still there based on the current opinions here) and if it has not become an actual article, I'm going to AfD it.--Isotope23 16:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated[edit]

The article is no longer a stub. All delete votes on account of it being a stub are now redered void. --Striver 15:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that you can't simply declare votes invalid. If I were you, I'd notify those people and give them a chance to change there votes. ---J.Smith 23:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not votes. They're users expressing their opinions. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Bobby1011 02:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attempt at filling out content with multiple 1-sentence sections but if you strip the section headers it's still a stub (and unencyclopedic). Or do you plan to transcribe the movie for us? --Mmx1 16:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If things get so ridiculous that i need to transcript the whole damn movie, ill do it. This is totaly incredible... --Striver 18:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article should defitiely be kept per norm. On the other hand, the article is still a stub (as per the formal definition WP:Stub). Cdcon 18:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly belive that the reasons to delete this article right now, after 24 houres of creation, is nothing more than ridiculous. People, at least be honest, write: "Delet: No conpiracy movies on WP". --Striver 19:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed my point. Other than regurgitating the content of the film (which, beyond a brief synopsis, is beyond the scope of WP), what other encyclopedic content could be included?

I'm not saying delete Alex Jones. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about his documentaries. But you created this page specifically to cite a particular quote from the documentary. I do not see in anyway how this page adds to the body of encyclopedic information beyond what already exists on Alex Jones. This movie was already on WP prior to the creation of this article, and would have been much better served with a redirect to Alex Jones (journalist) than the POV-pushing content that currently exists.--Mmx1 19:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Ill see if i can ablige. Thanks for clearing that out.--Striver 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better? --Striver 21:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source for "The movie became very popular in short time"? "Critica dissmis the film as hysterical and non-factual." I can't even find people debunking this they way they do "Farenheit 911" (and people claim that the two contain similar material). That's how little attention it's gotten. --Mmx1 21:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nutty, but notable. Engrish is bat.Morton devonshire 21:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article has not been improved at all by recent edits. I do not know what WTS 01 and NWO are supposed to stand for, and this article presumes that I do. Likewise, the "Burning of Rom" means nothing to me. Rome? Or are we talking about ROMs? This is not encyclopedic, it is a list of things that happen in a possibly nonnotable film, and even if it were to receive the huge amount of cleanup that it demands, I seriously doubt whether the result could ever be appropriate here. I can't imagine this being useful in an encyclopedia. When people want movie reviews, they go to IMDB. And I really don't like the idea of establishing a precedent for people creating outlines of movies. ergot 23:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed everything you demanded, and also, take a look at this: Lists of films. --Striver 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What I guess that it would really need to be encyclopedic would be reactions to the film from both supporters and detractors of Jones. Also, the archive.org batting average is a pretty good indication of notability, but I wouldn't mind seeing further evidence (comments on it by noted academics would go a long way). You have definately improved it, however. ergot 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So why didnt you just add a request for expansion, instead for a delete vote? This article was created for 2-3 days ago, you cant expect a perfect article within 3 days, or vote to delete it. --Striver 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Because I don't expect you to be able to find what I'm asking for, in which case I don't think that it would be properly notable. Prove me wrong and I'll change my vote. Also, as I said above, the possibility of setting a precedent for movie plot outlines being kept makes me uncomfortable. ergot 18:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Needs cleaning up but is notable. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 00:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia should be about collecting information, not throwing it away. We should aim to build the most comprehensive encyclopedia possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabalamat (talk • contribs)
• Delete per Mmx1. Sandstein 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unfortunately, people do listen to Alex Jones. Rhobite 01:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for having little or no info, and more or less a duplicate of what is found under Alex Jones. Merge whatever is possible, then replace with redirect. Bjelleklang - talk 02:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic, nn--MONGO 13:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Alex Jones' first movie. Kappa 14:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unfortunately the truth is that Alex Jones is well-known within the 9/11 'truth' movement and this movie is very well known within that movement. Merge and Redirect to Alex Jones (journalist) I understand the anger at Striver's rampant vandalism and heavily POV edits on Wikipedia, but we can't let that be the reason we delete articles. Lastly, I think there is enough people in these afd threads that think it's time that we close the door on Striver's editing on Wikipedia. The User has exhausted the community's patience.--Jersey Devil 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain one thing for? I ask this in good faith: I have heard lots of people say i do "POV edits". I dont understand what they mean. Could somebody give me some practical examples of me doing "pov edits"? As is now, i feel "Striver does pov edits" have become a rally cry, devoided of factual truth. As i see it. Maybe it could help comunication if somebody cared to show me.--Striver 19:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: Significant project of very noteworthy individual. Again, this sort of AfD seems to serve no other purpose, aside from being a distraction, than to dismantle articles that do not conform with the nominator's pov. Ombudsman 21:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was AFD'd it consisted of nothing more than a quote from the movie for the specific purpose of citing for a discussion on Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks. Striver has since attempted to improve the article to encyclopedic standards but has only a movie outline and metadata (user comments) from archive.org. There's sources for this article other than the movie itself. I'm not asking to dismantle it, I'm saying that properly belongs on Alex Jones (journalist) until there's enough content for it to stand on its own. I'm holding off on editing the article to give Striver a good faith attempt to create an encyclopedic entry, but if you reduced this article by WP:V, you'd be left with nothing more than already exists on [[Alex Jones (journalist). Ask yourself, would the article be better served as a 2-sentence stub or as a redirect Alex Jones (journalist)? --Mmx1 23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about giving a article more than 24 houres before deciding its worthless and need to be AFD'd? --Striver 00:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Noteworthy individual and article. Bogus deletion attempt for reasons cited above. SkeenaR 23:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand why this is a "bogus deletion attempt". I had to think for a while before deciding keep. Please be civil to your fellow Wikipedians. Isopropyl 02:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sorry if you took it that way. Without actually looking up the definition of "bogus", I basically take it to mean "not valid". And judging by the the results of voting on this recent rash of deletion attempts, it doesn't seem that they are valid. SkeenaR 05:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article needs work, but the movie is notable as one of the more widely known 9/11 conspiracy documentaries. Georgewilliamherbert 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • if it's so widely known, how come we can't find any citations other than metadata on archive.com? --Mmx1 22:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rewrite. Appears to be a notable enough film. I would like to see it rewritten; copyeditting appears to be absent, and I think the "content" section could stand be merged into the "summary" section. Isopropyl 01:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Merge/Redirect. Initial vote was based on article being rewritten at some point; author seems to be against POV removal, reverting edits which change his wording. Probably better for everyone if this gets redirected. Isopropyl 05:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge and redirect to Alex Jones (journalist) per nom. If it grows there, it could be recreated. I'd be OK with keep and cleanup too; better to have a short stub than a long but very sketchy outline. I do think Striver is going overboard creating these, but they do concern one of "the most significant events to have occurred so far in the 21st century", so it's understandable that more articles on the topic will be added to the good many that exist already. Imagine if WP had existed at the time of the Kennedy and King assassinations? Schizombie 02:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --rogerd 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When looking at the article, apply WP:V. Anonymous comments on archive.com do not constitute a source.--Mmx1 15:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not sourced; needs to cite at least one source published by a reliable publisher. The film itself is a primary source for this article. "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication." See WP:RS. The web citations do not satisfy this guideline since "they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report". Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per nom. If it ever gains enough notability or the article grows to where it needs it's own article, it can be moved out of the Alex Jones (journalist) article. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Alex Jones (journalist). The author of the article disallows any editing of what he calls "his view". I don't think there is a way to make this article into something that gives the reader a truthful non-biased account of the film. It is not worth eroding reliability for a film with such low notability. Weregerbil 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Condense and Merge with Alex Jones (journalist)#9-11: The Road to Tyranny. Also, there should be verification as to whether or not the movie has been accepted as a legitimate documentary. (It seems to be the source of a (rather silly) theory rather than documenting one.) Peter Grey 06:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'd say this film is a "documentary" the same way Weekly World News is "investigative journalism". This is what Alex Jones says at the beginning of the film:

Hello, I'm Alex Jones, a syndicated radio and television host based in Austin, Texas. And for many years I have been exposing the criminal activities of the global elite, also known as the New World Order. And this collection of power mad megalomaniacs has been using a successive string of terrorist events to usher in their corrupt world government. A world government where populations (their own documents show) will be herded into compact cities, will be issued national ID cards, and yes, even implantable microchips. But in this film we are first going to look at some historical examples of tyrants and governments and oligarchies alike using crises, in many cases terrorist events that they themselves perpetrate against their population ...

Sort of goes downhill from there. Documentary film is one that is intent to remain factual or non-fictional, does the intro give much chance of that...? :-) See for yourself, the film is freely and legally downloadable on the net.

Here are some more of Mr. Jones' regular antics (that link was mentioned in the "criticism" section of the article being AfD'd here until the entire criticism section was removed by you guess who.) Weregerbil 19:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & Merge - I've reviewed the debate and thought hard about it. I think merging would be the best option. ---J.Smith 20:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge - Even though I personally consider Alex Jones to be a kookbar of the first order, I would have no issue with this entry if it were rewritten from a neutral point of view (one which accurately represents both sides of the story). Since the original author has resisted such rewriting, however, the next best option is to merge the information with Alex Jones (journalist). Mary Read 09:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has some significance, the film is real, the information is so far as I can tell accurate. Google has 19,500 hits for the name. The movie's message may be unwelcome and its delivery may not be unbiased that can be mentioned in the article. The article definitely needs work, but can be kept. Cool3 20:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge - per nom Prodego ^talk 19:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naz Khialvi[edit]

Seems to be a nn Pakistani poet. It also seems to be unverifiable, judging by the comment at the end of the text.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn. Bobby1011 04:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ar the least because of the inability to meet WP:V per authors' own admission. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "I am writing all this because I need people to know such a great Sufi and poet..." Hardly a claim to notability; citations, references and bibliography required to illustrate the article.  (aeropagitica)  14:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reluctantly as unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, We do have poets in Pakistan who are notable but have not enough representation on the web. I think we should keep this article and ask for citations. Check also [16] for the writer, this is by his student, whose link is [17]. --Falcon007 03:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrokradio[edit]

This radio station appears to be nn. It has supposedly been around for 2 months, has only 500 google hits. The website doesn't seem very good and the google hits look also very amateurish for a commercial website.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's an online radio station with no substantial following. Bobby1011 04:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it has a tripod website... that should be speedyable! :) ---J.Smith 04:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 2 month old station, Tripod website... non-notability asserted. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kinu. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This Is A Vanity Page For A Nonnotable Radio Station Whose Website Is Hosted On Tripod. Also, The Creator Of This Article And The Radio Station's Website Both Seem To Have The Odd Habit Of Capitalising Every Word, Sort Of Like In Leonard Cohen's Novels When He's Addressing God. ergot 19:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn ComputerJoe 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not listed on iTunes (though it's aacPlus, which wouldn't be anyway), only 3 google hits, conflicts with a WROK radio station in Illinois anyway. Haikupoet 03:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Textbook case of a non-notable bit of pseudo-advertisement. --Wingsandsword 04:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Rx StrangeLove 05:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Bowman[edit]

Delete Non-notable. Article created to illustrate notability of subject for purposes of user Striver's POV argument on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks.

Full bio of Mr. Bowman can be found here[18]

Judge notability for yourself. His primary claim to fame is his self-proclaimed directorship of the "Star Wars" program under "Republican and Democratic" administrations, when in fact he headed up a space defense program under Presidents Carter and Ford, prior to the proposal by President Reagan in 1983. We do not need a page for every program administrator, particularly as the program was non-notable prior to Reagan's 1983 proposal. On the basis of military service alone we also do not need a page for every person who attained the rank of O-5; there are Generals and Admirals who may not be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. Mmx1 03:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand The reason for creating the article may be in poor form, but the subject deserves an article. Bobby1011 03:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree. Which criteria of WP:BIO would this article pass? The subject has 2 major claims to notability:

• Director of "Star Wars" under "Republican and Democratic" administrations, which turns out to be hyperbole
• His claims regarding 9-11.

How would this article be expanded? The autobiographical info on the link is heavy on non-notable details "In his wife's chancel drama ministry, Dr. Bowman has portrayed Peter, John the Baptist, and Caiaphus, among others." The preponderance of information on google about him is autobiographical, and outside of a few articles quoting him or his appearances, no one has seen fit to write about him. From what source would this article be expanded? The lack of verifiable third-party sources is for me a sign of non-notability. --Mmx1 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is also running for congress [19]. Bobby1011 04:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also passes Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics point 8, as he was awarded the "Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President's Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Republic Aviation Airpower Award, The Society of American Military Engineers' Gold Medal (twice), the Air Medal with five oak leaf clusters, and numerous other awards." He was an Associate Professor, Department Head, and Assistant Dean. Bobby1011 04:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That criteria is for academic achievements. There are none listed here. Remember that this is essentially a campaign ad so take the claims with a grain of salt.

• I'm not familiar with the Eisenhower Medal, but there appears to be a prestigious one awarded by the Eisenhower Foundation, starting in 1988. I find no indication he received one from the Eisenhower Foundation. Other recipients of the Dwight Eisenhower Medal from the Eisenhower Foundation are Walter Annenberg, Colin Powell, George HW Bush, George Shultz, Donald Rumsfeld, Gerald Ford, and Alan Greenspan. Does Robert Bowman's resume compare in any way to the other recipients?

Most likely he received another award (e.g. Johns Hopkins has a Milton S. Eisenhower medal) but did not cite the organization that gave it.

• Google for the George F. Kennan Peace Prize only turns up Bowman's own sites and articles quoting that bio (bad sign).
• Republic Aviation Airpower Medal, I imagine, would be from the firm Republic Aviation.
• The President's Medal of Veterans for Peace is an award from a PAC, given by the President of Veterans for Peace, not the President of the US.
• SAME is a professional organization like ACM or ICEE

I will not endeavor to count out how many assistant deans do not have a Wikipedia entry. This is the sort of stuff you find on a mid-level CEO's resume. Fancy-sounding titles that don't mean much.

--Mmx1 05:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is still a recipient of the Air Medal with five oak leaf clusters, which is unusual for a professor (note. the awards do not have to be for academic achievement). Other than that he is running for congress. That is notable in and of itself. I know, I know the WP:BIO page specifies holding office, but it also says that the list is not exclusionary. I think that a decent article may come from this, but I agree with you that what is there now serves no encyclopedic purpose. Bobby1011 05:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Academics states "Note that many academics are notable for reasons beyond their academic profession. The following are guidelines for judging the notability of academics based on their academic achievements." I feel that of all his claims to notability, his congressional candidacy and academic credentials are the least impressive.

--Mmx1 06:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Air Medal isn't particularly impressive. Medal of Honor yes, Silver Star or Bronze Star maybe. --Calton | Talk 07:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Even if not a single of his merits where notable, wich i doubt, his combined achievments makes him notable. Even if not that, then for sure is teaming up with Andreas Von Buelow to creat a website that says USA did 9/11 make him notable. You can rest assured that we have a lot of much less notable people here on Wikipedia. I mean, is a porn actress in cheap movies really so much more notable? --Striver 11:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability is strongly suspect...I came upon several websites that appear to be pure propaganda. [20], [21] which originates from [22].--MONGO 13:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is being used for off-topic non-encyclopedic propaganda, a "type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information". Example: [[23]]. See: Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Joema 13:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - His claim to notability seems to be his involvement with researcher questioning the official account of 9/11. I think his biography would be best maintained there, as it is now. Incidently, I'm surprised that Program Director of SDI would have been an O-5 position. I'm pretty sure a position like that would be filled by a major general, not a lieutenant colonel. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't heading up SDI, he headed up what he calls the "Star Wars" program before the term was coined. SDI under Reagan was headed by an O-9 (Lt. Gen James Alan Abrahamson), and he doesn't have an article. --Mmx1 14:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smell the bias: "His biography should be on another page, and not on his biography article".

If the guy is notable enough to have a biography ANYWHERE in wikipedia, does that not make him notable enogh to have his own biography? This is really easy: He says USA did it, since people cant stand him, since he must be deleted. That is systematical bias. C'mon, only for being in Scholars for 9 11 Truth, and nothing more, mankes him notable.--Striver 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you're going in circles here. Elsewhere you claim this is a notable supporter of the 9/11_Bin_Laden_conspiracy_theory, then you claim he is notable because he is a supporter of such a theory. You want to know what he is? He's a retired Air Force administrator trying to prop up a mediocre political campaign with exaggerated claims about working on "Star Wars" and grossly inflating his awards. Claiming by ommission to have won the Eisenhower Medal when in fact he did not win the prestigious Dwight Eisenhower Medal to me constitutes borderline fraud. It's akin to the doctor in the Schiavo case claiming on his resume to be "Nobel-nominated" to try to hitch on the prestige of the Nobel when in fact the phrase "Nobel-nominated" is complete bunk (nominations are never disclosed and can be submitted by anyone)--Mmx1 16:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Striver. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not sourced, and many of these claims are not WP:V because they cannot be independently verified (the sources I could find are highly suspect). Unless someone can source these claims, Bowman fails WP:BIO.--Isotope23 18:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Improve Verifiability or Delete. The claim that Bowman was the Director of the Star Wars initiative is almost certainly true. However, there needs to be a citation from a verifiable source. The other claims made in the article are of dubious origin and importance. Add content. This article needs more biographical information. It is currently a stub. Cdcon 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article's citations and content have been drastically improved since my first review.  Cdcon  15:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly WHAT claim is not sourced? It says that the biograpy makes that statment, and there is a link provided to the biography. I expect the admin to diregard votes with false statments. --Striver 19:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, when I said "Not Sourced" this was the version of the page I was seeing: [24]. You added the link after my comment. Please try and assume WP:FAITH before you make accusations. The other issue I have is that when I went out and independently tried to source and verify the claims in this article, I found his autobiographical site. He makes a bunch of claims there, but as Mmx1 and Cdcon have pointed out, these claims cannot be independently verified. As for running for congress, he has declared himself a candidate and anyone can do that. He doesn't even have the requisite signatures to be a primary candidate at this time. Until that has happened, IMO he is not a serious candidate. It's the equivelent of me going onto my blog and declaring that I'm running for Congress at this point.--Isotope23 20:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, i lost my temper. Even in the link you provided, the autobiography is there, in the external links section. peace. --Striver 21:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... I didn't see it in the external links when I first looked at it.--Isotope23 00:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From his campaign website [25], where the claims are toned down, Col. Bowman was Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the Air Force Space Division." This may or may not have included the forerunner to SDI, but the term "Star Wars" was not even coined until the mid-80's. There was no significant work on SDI until Reagan was informed of the theory in 1983, five years after Col. Bowman retired. --Mmx1 19:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, a second source that proves his notability. I am starting to get a bit cranky about seeing a whole army of people yeling "no notable" as soon as they step out of the box and question say USA did it. How is that NOT censorship?

THE SINGLE FACT THAT HE IS RUNNING FOR CONGRESS AND SAYD USA DID IT MAKES HIM NOTABLE. --Striver 19:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You have mentioned two sources. Let me go over them with you:

• Autobiography. It is a posting from the United Catholic Church. It has roughly the same worth as the biography of the CEO of a company posted on a company's website, which is approximately zero.
• Biography. It is a posting by Bowman for Congress. The same rationale as above can be applied here, rendering the value to this source as approximately zero.

Your two sources are very poor. Please find better ones.  Cdcon  19:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're ALL autobiographical. Every bio of COL Bowman online is sourced from his autobiographical page(s). Note in WP:V the section "Self-published sources". If I put up a page saying that I'm the Queen of England does that make it a source? My god, do you know how many Tom, Dick, and Harrys run for Congress in the US? ~500/2 year term * average 2 candidates per term. Five hundred candidates a year. That's not by any means notable. --Mmx1 19:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for loosing temper, i do that sometimes... sorry. --Striver 19:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. We can all get emotional and defensive about our strongly-held beliefs. --Mmx1 20:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep needs to be expanded though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazyeights (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 February 2006.
• delete Jcuk 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not known for anything but his involvement in the 9/11 group. Rhobite 01:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Striver has a point. When people say that somebody is not notable, sometimes I think they mean "not notable to me." I have seen articles on this list who are notable in fundamentalist Christian circles, which apparently some people think disqualifies them for notability. I have seen musicians listed because they are "not notable," even though they may be the principal player in a well-known orchestra and have several recordings. Because they are not pop singers, they are "not notable" to some people. Let's be careful. On the other hand, I would like to see the information verified. If it isn't, then the article should be highly revised or scrapped. Logophile 11:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Though I nom'd the delete I have made a good faith effort to lookup and verify all claims made by the subject and have found no references that aren't autobiographical. Neither, so far, has the author. --Mmx1 23:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per striver. Kappa 14:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. He may be worth a small article as a congressional candidate (and a bigger one if he actually gets the Democratic nomination), but as it stands it's a PR POV entry. --Aaron 17:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: Clearly notable; reason for AfD is clearly to remove an article that does not conform with nominator's pov. Awards underscore recognition of notability by significant stakeholders. Ombudsman 21:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:AGF. Maybe you would like to reword your comments? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Good faith is not the issue here, as placing an article on AfD is by it's very definition a statement of pov, to which the nominator is entitled. Mentioning the obvious motivation behind the AfD has little or nothing to do with whether or not the nominator is acting in good faith, as everyone is entitled to their own pov on what falls within the bounds of good faith. You seem to have a narrower definition of good faith than what the phrase means outside the Wiki. Ombudsman 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, perfect example of POV pushing. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Noteworthy individual. SkeenaR 22:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN and POV --rogerd 03:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep but needs work. I added two books he authored (possibly the second is a revision of the first, but I don't know). I can't determine if he is the same Robert M. Bowman as this one http://www.biblicalapologetics.net/About_Rob_Bowman.htm who has written about the Star Wars movies [26]; some of the SDI Star Wars books on abebooks.com do give his name as Bowman Jr., but that could be in error. Perhaps he's the father of the apologetics one. Schizombie 03:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, taking another look at the apologetics page above, RMBjr indicates he has a son named Robbie, and RMB's family photos page indicates he has a grandson named Robbie [27]. For what it's worth. Also, some books citing RMB:
    • Reagan's America by Lloyd deMause (1984) ISBN 0940508028 quotes RMB: "Carter's space weapons chief, Col. Robert M. Bowman, called it 'the ultimate military lunacy, easily overwhelmed and vulnerable,' which would give the nuclear holocaust 'a hair-trigger of milliseconds.'"[28] citing "Bowman's appearance on 'The MacNeill-Lehrer News Hour,' WNET-TV, November 10, 1983. Also see his statements in 'Star Wars-Pie in the Sky,' New York Times, December 14, 1983, p. A35."[29]
    • Space Policy: An Introduction by Nathan C. Goldman (1992) ISBN 0813810248 citing RMB's "Arms Control in Space: Preserving Critical Strategic Space Systems without Weapons in Space" in America's Plans for Space (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1984).
    • Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American Empire by Carl Boggs (2003) ISBN 0415944996 citing RMB's "Wounding National Security, Star Wars II Endangers the American people." The News Insider, July 23, 2001.
    • Censored 2001: The Year's Top 25 Censored Stories, by Peter Phillips & Project Censored (2001) ISBN 158322064X citing RMB's "Our Continuing War Against Iraq," Space and Security News May 1998.
    • Smashmouth: Two Years in the Gutter with Al Gore and George W. Bush by Dana Milbank (2001) ISBN 0465045901 quotes RMB.
    • The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (2005) ISBN 1566565960 blurbs RMB.
  • He's also quoted in:
    • "Air Force Reports First Firing of Space Weapon" by Jeff Gerth, New York Times January 22, 1984
    • "Shuttle Repair Capacity Called Militarily Useful" by Wayne Biddle, New York Times April 19, 1984
    • "Split Over Buchanan Splinters Reform Party Convention" by Mike Allen, New York Times September 26, 1999

restart[edit]

Ok, ill start again. Basicly, he is among the people holding my view of 9/11 that has the highest social status. Sure, anyone can run for congress, but not many that hold my view of 9/11 do. Also, he is a member of S9/11T. So, by deleting this guy, you are in fact shrinking some of "cabal" that hold my view of 9/11, and right now, they arent all over the place. So, based on this, i argue he is notable.

I mean, how many other people with like him do you find that hold that view?

He might not be notable in the big world, but he is notable among people that hold my view of 9/11. Comments? --Striver 21:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As you admit, you have very specific and uncommon views of 9/11. Also you admit having a personal stake in this: deleting his article shrinks the group agreeing with your views. Wikipedia says this about letting personal views influence articles: Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Wikipedia says this about letting a personal stake affect articles or references to articles: "Creating...references to autobiographical articles...in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable." Joema 23:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You see, i view my self as a representative of the people sharing my view, at least here in WP. I belive the policy you are mentioning is about not using Wikipedia to gain personaly from it, for example, selling a product one has created, or further some theory i have inveted.

But that is not the case. I do not try to sell anyting, or make comercial for anyting, or further any theory i have invented, neither partialy nor completly.

My personal interest is comparable to the personal interest a Mormon has in trying to keep a prominent mormon from bein excluded from wikipedia. The only argument he can offer is that the person in question is a prominen mormon.

And that is my arguement. Robert M. Bowman is a prominent "Mormon", if you get my point.

Please dont delete my "Mormon". --Striver 01:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we are comparing to mormons, look at this list of mormons: List of Latter-day Saints. Many of them are far less notable to mormons, than this guy is to those holding my view. --Striver 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, i found this guy in the list: Itula Mili. He is nothing to mormons, compared to what Robert M. Bowman is to those of my view. Still, nobody is suggesting to delete his article. And this is not a anomaly, the rule is that people corresponding to minorities are compared to others in their own group, not to everyone else.

And Robert M. Bowman is very notable AMONG the people holding my view. --Striver 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An one last thing about soapboxes. I dont care to convince you about my view, i have hardly mentioned what my view is. I want it represented, i dont care for anyone acctualy beliving in it or not, not in Wikipedia anyway. So in no way am i trying to soapbox. --Striver 01:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete user has been trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to spread '9/11 truth'. Look at his page history [30]--Jersey Devil 08:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, i am trying to have me view represented on Wikipedia. And you call me a soapboxer for that? I take great offense in that. Would the opposite be soaboxing for the Bin Laden theory? Allegations as this makes my angry, i see this as clear evidence of people not even recoqnizing my basic rights to have my views represted, exemplified in deleting prominent people holding them. --Striver 10:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, that is using a soapbox. NPOV--Jersey Devil 12:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not soapboxing[edit]

You are misstaken. Read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. A soapbox is:

ONE:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. [31]

I do not break NPOV when editing. That means i am not soapboxing, what i am doing is "report objectively about such things". I am reporting objectivly about the "Bush did it" view, i am not propageting or advocating it.

TWO:

Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability. [32]

I am not personaly involved in any of the events that i do articles about, and i am most certanly not personly involved in Robert M. Bowman.

THREE:

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability. [33]

I do not make articles about companies or products. --Striver 13:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You owe me an apology for wrongly accusing me of soapboxing --Striver 13:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've admitted several times you have very specific and uncommon opinions of 9/11, and you want to express these in Wikipedia. According to Webster's dictionary, a soapbox is "something that provides an outlet for delivering opinions" [34]. By your own admission what you're doing is soapboxing. Joema 14:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sir, i do not "want to express these", i want to REPORT these. Who cares about Webster when im qouting WP:NOT? Further, i do not "delivering opinions" i REPORT opinions, a great difference! --Striver 14:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've already admitted your goal is expressing your uncommon personal views on 9/11: "not many that hold my view of 9/11...I want it represented"..."i am trying to have me view represented on Wikipedia" Using someone else as your mouthpiece doesn't change this fact. Joema 14:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying i am soapboxing when i add articles to Wikipedia, since i want them represeted? --Striver 15:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soapboxing is "something that provides an outlet for delivering opinions" (Webster). You've said you want your opinions represented on Wikipedia via this article. IOW, you're using this article as a vehicle to express your views. So yes, I'd say that's soapboxing. Joema 15:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, my question is: Why are you using Webster to define a Wikipedia term? Why dont you use WP:NOT? --Striver 15:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because when there's a question over the meaning of a word, the standard practice is go to the dictionary. "Soapbox" is not a Wikipedia term. It's an English term that's used in many places, including Wikipedia. Joema 15:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? In that case, you are soapboxing. You are using wikipedia to delivering your opinions regarding me, and hence, you are a soapboxer. How about that? --Striver 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stating my opinion -- I'm just repeating what you yourself have admitted about your goals. Joema 16:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you are, it is not my oppinion that im soapboxing, so it must be your, considering this is a dialog. You see how ridiculous this is getting? Acctualy, you are a bigger soapboxer than me, by your own standards, since i didnt add my oppinion when i was creating articles.

Essentialy, what you are saying, is that one shuold not be allowed to creat articles if the articles is about something one belives in. --Striver 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stating my opinion -- just repeating what you yourself have said. You said you have uncommon opinions about 9/11 and want to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to express these. Joema 17:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it mine or your oppinion that i am soapboxing? --Striver 17:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the above postings, it appears to be several people's opinion you are soapboxing. Joema 18:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability established. [35] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Which conflicts with the Wiki contention that Carol Rosin originated the term "Star Wars". I'll pull his 1985 book from the library and see what it says. Would like an SDI expert to weigh in on who was more prominent at the time, Bowman or Rosin and where the term originated. Maybe I'm cynical, but since when did news stories plug the subject's website? Mr. Bowman has pushed a lot of propaganda about his involvement in the SDI, but he was apparently never worth a mention on the SDI nor does his ISS appear to be any more than a one-man press release machine.--Mmx1 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When was Rosin supposed to have originated it? Whoever did it, I'm sure it happened early on, it's a fairly obvious nickname. Schizombie 20:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1983, I believe, according to the SDI article; it is unfortunately not very good. Have posted on Talk:Strategic Defense Initiative asking for feedback. Have lexis-nexised him and found 1 NYT and 1 CSR editorial; the other articles quote him as a consultant and aren't very useful for notability. --Mmx1 20:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-24 07:40Z

Fob Five[edit]

Local band. Prodded but contested on talk page. NickelShoe 03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - this article was originally up for speedy delete, and I still agree that it easily fits the criteria for a non-notable band speedy. Doesn't the contesting statement "this is a hot new local group" give it away? --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete an per Smith. Bobby1011 03:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per above. Non-notable garage band --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete after reading the talk page. Definitely nn. Daniel Case 06:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girisanchar[edit]

Annual outdoors trip involving less than 200 participants. Google only has 5 results, external links are only to personal websites. Notability in question. No vote. _└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 03:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotion w/o encyclopedical value. Pavel Vozenilek 03:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or speedy as a NN-club. ---J.Smith 04:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, promotional. And their website is on GeoCities... --Kinu ^t/_c 04:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable informal gathering.  (aeropagitica)  16:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 15:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The DAE in question seems to be the Indian Department of Atomic energy, and it seems that this is an all-national event for the departments employees with a 17 year tradition. Borderline notable, in my book. Zocky | picture popups 20:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The original author (User:Rajiv13) sent me the following by e-mail. It is relevant, so I'm forwarding it to this AfD vote, copied below: --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 04:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.My emphasis was to explain the word GiriSanchar and context in which it is being used.

2.The lack of google hits is very obvious as the net accessibility is still limited in India.

3.But I have no intention to advertise it. Because no body other than employee of department can take part. [And getting permission to go for Girisanchar is very difficult, I got permission after 12 years of serving the deptt]

4.DAE is Dept.of Atomic Energy in India and BARC is Bhabha Atomic Research Centre([[36]])

5.These unescorted treks are done by each group 20-25 persons each of and only help is white arrow marks created by pilot trekker(s).

• Weak keep or merge - In response to the above reply I received, I am changing my vote from an abstain to a weak keep. It is an official event involving government groups. If not keep, perhaps finally create a stub for India's Department of Atomic Energy and add this as a section. There are a number of sub-groups of the DAE that have articles (e.g. Centre for Advanced Technology), but the DAE itself does not. --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 04:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it's notable based on Smith120bh's comments above. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 01:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novick[edit]

Vanispamcruftvertisement by a comedian with only 65 Google hits, most of which are similarly self-promotional. Daniel Case 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Vanispamcruftvertisement" What sort of a neologism is that? Bobby1011 04:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to comment by nominator: See WP:VSCA. Daniel Case 04:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've honestly never heared that term. Bobby1011 04:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's why we defined it for you. Stifle 16:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a good neologism. Describes exactly what this article is. Anabanana459 04:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 04:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and maybe redirect to Mike Novick. :P --Kinu ^t/_c 04:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination ---J.Smith 04:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 04:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanispamcruftisment, nn. --Terence Ong 15:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Textbook case of Vanispamcruftvertisement. --Wingsandsword 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watcher (of msn conversations)[edit]

NN subject that's probably handled better under lurker; posted by a user who's doing a lot of this sort of thing tonight. Daniel Case 04:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteas neologism. Bobby1011 04:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no comments realy... ---J.Smith 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Not worth a redirect as this is not a logical search term. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no proof of this and it could easily be summed up in a sentence on MSN. Jedi6 07:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-24 07:39Z
• Delete per nom --Pak21 12:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above ComputerJoe 12:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Notjarvis 12:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom: Lurker will do as an article, there's nothing to merge here.  (aeropagitica)  14:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, WP:NOR, WP:V, neologism...--Isotope23 18:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom; I don't see anything worth merging unless the sexual thing can be verfied. ergot 15:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable singer. I'm from Canberra and he isn't even well known there.

Capitalistroadster 05:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we was quite notable in the Canberra area. He is a regular figure in the busking scene, and can be found busking daily at the major shopping centres. He's also noteworthy because he has cerebral paulsy and is quite well known Australiawide in the CP community and a number of other disability circles. In my opinion this is enough to be noteable... how many people are there worldwide with CP who derive the majority of their earnings through musical performance, writing and publishing?Frade 01:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ James[edit]

Lounge singer in greater Canberra area (Canberrea?). No relevant Google hits. Daniel Case 04:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as non-notable band WP:BAND --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 04:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: A7. Famous local lounge singer doesn't seem like much of an assertion of notability. Would be delete anyway. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn singer. Perhapse speedy? ---J.Smith 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Kinu. Bobby1011 04:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOFUS[edit]

I originally nominated this article for speedy deletion as nonsense. Unsourced, I can't find any relavent Google results. At best, it's an over-done dictionary definition of a new word (as the response seems to claim). At worst, it's a general attack page. Note that I copied the creator's talk page response below. I stand by speedy delete. _└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 04:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Talk:HOFUS: "To all the hardworking Wikipedia staff who are so discriminately judging this page after a mere three minutes of its existence, please be informed that this page certainly does not discuss meaningless nonsense. The HOFUS is a rapidly-spreading term used to describe a kind of classroom problem throughout the United States as well as possibly other nations. This article gives its reader a detailed description of the HOFUS, as well as select methods with which one may rid oneself of its presence. By not reading this article, certain unfortunate individuals may not have the opportunity to learn about and rid themselves of one of the primary reasons they fear the arrival of the school bus each morning. One such encounter has happened to us, and we would regret missing the opportunity to alert the world to the presence of this nuicance. Please consider the value of this article more carefully.

After looking over your criteria for patent nonsense(ie: Total nonsense - i.e. text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes things like "1`- 5bl[9 1vn]304 0=10am[0v9a1 7", where random keys of the keyboard have been pressed. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever), it is obvious that we do not fulfill these standards at all. First of all, our writing is a completely, fully-constructed work that an intelligent human being can comprehend. Included in this article, you will find no random strings of random letters and numbers punched into the keyboard. Secondly, as we have stated in our discussion topic, the information clearly illustrates an inherent problem and is in no way confused, discombobulated, or written in an unintelligible manner. Although words such as HOFUS may seem strange at first, once you begin to accept different ideas, a piece of information that seems useless may soon become a masterpiece. A word such as fnord, for example, may at first seem like complete garbage, but your article about that term has shown there is a great well of knowledge to be found in that uncommon word (see wikipedia article on fnord). Please consider this as you edit and reconsider your descision to delete our article."

• Strong delete: "The HOFUS is a rapidly-spreading term used to describe a kind of classroom problem throughout the United States as well as possibly other nations." So, therefore, require editor to write a hundred times on the blackboard, "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day." Daniel Case 04:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Daniel. Bobby1011 04:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per likely WP:NFT or, at best, non-notable neologism. A search finds nothing which supports this usage. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 05:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously. Could have been speedied. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete --Hetar 06:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as speedily as possible. Neologism, WP:NOT a how-to, WP:NFT, all that good medicine for bad articles. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sorry kids WP:NFT -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 10:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as above ComputerJoe 12:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  14:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NFT. To who the creator is, go and create a blog or website to write this kind of stuff. --Terence Ong 15:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as per above. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as per aeropagitica. Fan1967 15:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Smith120bh and aeropagitica Schizombie 22:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice, a great speedy delete, in my mind. JGorton 19:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Neologism, NOT made up words in school. Georgewilliamherbert 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was:Speedy Deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 05:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Resop[edit]

Vanity article. My name gets more Google hits than his name. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters. Speedy deletion. -Sinatra Fonzarelli 05:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 05:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. If you want to nominate this for speedy deletion, you should put the ((nn-bio)) tag on the page. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed. Pandaman87 05:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as unverifiable and possible hoax -- Longhair 21:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian SCOTT[edit]

Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, and there is practically no encyclopedic value to this article. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Australian English. Bobby1011 05:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • if verifiable, which I severely doubt it is. I get 68 unique Googles for ["Australian SCOTT" nuclear], from 113 total hits. The majority of the hits on the first page are news 'summary' pages, with information concerning one of the Bali Nine ("20 year old Australian Scott Rush") appearing on the same page as media-quoted concerns over nuclear testing programs in Teheran, Iran, and Japan. As an OR aside, I'm Aussie, and I've never heard this term used. Delete, unless externally verified. -- Saberwyn 06:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, never heard it. It's either absurdly recent (non-notable), localised or just plain bull (patent nonsense). In fact, judging by their user page and contributions such as Image:Sw3gc2.jpg, I'd bet on the later. — Graibeard ^(talk) 07:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've never heard of it either, and I doubt there's anything worth merging. However, I'd just like to note that "Speedy delete, never heard of it" will live on immortal as one of the most unfortunate phrases ever offered up on AfD. Heehee ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was originally a plain delete vote, but the more I looked the more it seemed a speedy. ie: patent nonsense. Apologies for my poor phrasing, enthusiasm or whatever. — Graibeard ^(talk) 08:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as short article with little or no context. Probably unverifiable and certainly not notable even if verifiable. Capitalistroadster 12:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 12:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
• Speedy delete as unverifiable and nn. --Terence Ong 15:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This has to be false. Chairman S. | Talk 21:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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