< October 17	October 19 >

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

The result was speedy close; User's first edit was to ((subst:afd)) and then proceed to do these. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comixpedia[edit]

Wikipedia text copyright infringement and GFDLvio crime encyclopedia website, and nn website (see alexa 545,071 ranks. WasingtonOOO 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Eadie[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)).

Non-notable high school principle. Was prodded, but prod was removed by an anon Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 21:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't really seem to have done anything notible. Article feels like it was written by family member or close friend - SimonLyall 21:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm sure she's very nice. Not apparently notable. Principal, incidentally. - Corporal Tunnel 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Seems to be a page with a myriad of copyright violations too. --Ineffable3000 22:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. -Amatulic 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. EVula 22:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mrs Eadie is a very prestigous Wellingtonian and well known for her work on the use of technology in schools, especially in New Zealand. She deserves to have article on Wikipedia. The school she is currently head of is also one of the most renown private schools in New Zealand. It is also one of the oldest in the country. User:203.97.99.126 (moved from Talk:Gillian Eadie by --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 03:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC) )[reply]
• Keep I was the one who started this article and I am most certainly not a family member or friend! In fact i've never met the person, but really she is quite notable in New zealand educational circles and I don't see a problem with her article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraud2 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment If you can explain how Ms. Eadie passes Wikipedia:Notability (people), I'll be happy to reverse my vote. EVula 05:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She does pass Wikipedia's notability standards as she does have published works and is a recognised professional who has conducted groundbreaking research that is widely recognised by a multitude of educational professionals in New Zealand. She has also won awards for her work. She is also academic.
  • Comment And isn't WP:BIO quite clearly a non-exclusionary list of criteria? --Dom 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable enough, I'd say, within her field. The copyvios and tone can be worked on, as I've done; although, after removing all the unnecessary cruft about the things that aren't what make her notable, there doesn't seem to be all that much left. Still, better than stubs I've seen, and I think it's a fine addition. --Dom 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Attributed and notable within the educational circle. Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 13:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -She appears to be notable enough. I don't see any reason why some personal aspects of the article needed to be removed. Way better than some stubs i've seen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Jockstrap5000 (talk • contribs) .

New user, five contributions all about Gillian Eadie. Suspected sockpuppet. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 22:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Writing two papers and winning an award for IT excellence in school don't seem to be indications of notability, unless it can be demonstrated in the article those papers or the award are well-known, per the proposed WP:PROF or anything at WP:BIO. Gotyear 03:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. What is the widely recognized groundbreaking research she's done? The article mentions her speaking at conferences, winning an award and the titles of two works, but it gives me no context from which to understand or verify the importance of her work. Gotyear 03:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of notability. Daniel.Bryant 06:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, most likly writen by her or a family member/friend.--†ĥε þяíћɔЄ öf ɒĥɑямä^{Talk to Me} 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 18:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy McNeil[edit]

This appears to be something made up in school one day - note the author of this page (as well as his contribs) and the Google test (most Google hits point to a different person with the same name). Scobell302 05:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, speedy if you're rouge enough. MER-C 10:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... I can't really see the need for encyclopedia entries on such fictional characters. Akradecki 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above.UberCryxic 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deeeeeelete as above. - Corporal Tunnel 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable unconditionally if it is a hoax or not. --Ineffable3000 22:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons noted by others above. -Amatulic 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everybody else. Simply doesn't belong here. EVula 22:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 07:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Yacht Club[edit]

Vanity page for NN-organization DesertSky85451 23:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject has adiquate notability in yachting and yacht racing sports; article not bad starter. -- Infrogmation 02:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has some interesting info but needs references beyond the web site. --JJay 00:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani^talk 00:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It does have intresting info, but needs to be wikified and have more sources. Hello32020 01:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Has sufficient notability.UberCryxic 01:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above and historical significance. Will probably be expanded if given time. Smeelgova 01:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy Keep per the unanimity above. --Daniel Olsen 02:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stubby, but quite notable. Participates in the highest levels of competition of a notable sport (Yacht Racing) thus, by extension, also notable. --Jayron32 04:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 12:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Summers[edit]

I think the first sentence of the article sums it up pretty well - fictional character who appeared in one comic book-based novel (that doesn't even have it's own article) about an alternate future timeline. Non-notable is another way to phrase it. CovenantD 00:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cringe whenever I see a comic-related AfD, but this one is definately appropriate. I don't like using notability as a reason to delete articles, but in this case it's unsourced and I don't think it'll ever be verifiable. - Lex 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• question What are the thoughts on the book series having a page? I've never heard of it, but I figured that I should ask. FrozenPurpleCube 01:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't mind that, but also think that the unique characters appearing in it don't need their own article. CovenantD 04:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani^talk 00:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pretty damn obscure. Caknuck 03:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable minor character. —ptk✰fgs 09:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed and listed on deletion review. --Coredesat 01:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson Jihad[edit]

AFD retracted. See comment at bottom. -Halo 01:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Would the nominator please retract nomination and relist on WP:DRV[edit]

I believe it would be for the best that this be disputed via drv as an improper no consensus close, rather than psuedo-relisted as a new debate immediately after the old one. Any objections? --tjstrf 01:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I accept this scenario. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retracted. I will add to WP:DRV, but can I ask in advance that there be no vote canvassing? Halo 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever. Viva la bureaucracy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was flagged as copyvio from [2]. Yep, it's straight off their website. MER-C 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School One[edit]

Currently a POV original research. Reads like a private school ad designed to attract new students. Notability of the institution is not asserted. Húsönd 00:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete reads like an advert, contains information that should be on the official site or a student handbook, notability not established. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It seems that people are learning how to mimic the appearance of a WP article in order to keep theirs around longer. N Shar 02:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. That kind of content belongs on your own website, not here. --JaimeLesMaths 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its a 30+ year-old private, accredited High School. Consensus expressed other places on Wikipedia seems to indicate that high schools are inherently notable. As a (+) for this one, it DOES have a notably different approach to curriculum. As a (-), it only has about 90 students. The article is crappy; but poor writing, even non-NPOV writing, is NOT a criteria for deletion. Deletion should be based on the merits of the SUBJECT, not of the writing in the article. This one seems to barely meet baseline notablity requirements. --Jayron32 05:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a copyvio, however, is a reason for deletion. MER-C 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 18:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kollwitz[edit]

Non-notable musician: only Google hits are promotional pages, no entry in AMG. Spammy page created by apparent relative. —Chowbok 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Where does it say that the page was written by a relative? The note at the bottom seems to indicate to me that the relative created HIS website, not necessarily the article here. After double-checking my own idiocy and looking at the logs, it indeed seems to have been written by a relative. Delete. --Hemlock Martinis 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Article was written by a relative, which qualifies it as an autobiography. I'll grant that being an early and well-known Chapman Stick player is an assertion of notability, but the absence of a discography tells me he's nowhere near notable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC -- I think -- because no independent sources are provided to back up the asserted concert tour, and discography is minimal. N Shar 03:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Peta 03:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If he's not notable enough to be a "Featured Artist" on stick.com, then probably doesn't pass WP:NN. Caknuck 03:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Why not merge with the article on Chapman Stick, seems notable enough - if his the best? The Crying Orc 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. There are so many musicians in the world. - Corporal Tunnel 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and add a one-sentence expansion to the entry in the list of musicians in the Chapman stick article. -Amatulic 22:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gender-neutral pronoun. --Coredesat 20:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S/he[edit]

Incomplete nomination by 161.142.24.130 (talk · contribs). The reason given on the talk page was: "Listed as for deletion as there are no references and this term is nothing but an incorrect use of a slash to indicate alternation. Correctly it should be he/she, she/he. A case could be made for s'/he but it would be very weak." --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT. --- RockMFR 01:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gender-neutral pronoun. --Daniel Olsen 01:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I use "it" for an unknown third-person.--Patchouli 02:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gender-neutral pronoun per above. Not strictly as dictated by WP:NOT but who cares? N Shar 03:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gender-neutral pronoun per above. Smeelgova 04:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect to Gender-neutral pronoun. —ptk✰fgs 09:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. MER-C 10:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per all above. It's a legitimate (or at least, a used) gender neutral pronoun, but not nearly enough info about it to merit its own article. GassyGuy 10:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. This is inaccurate above all else; I've seen s/he used without a whiff of activism by "genderqueers" (who makes up these words?) or anyone else, out of simple convenience. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gender-neutral pronoun per above. --Limetom 01:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gender-neutral pronoun - I've seen this usage frequently enough, but not frequently enough to net an article when the gender-neutral pronoun article clearly suffices. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of hacker and cracker groups[edit]

A hacker group category exists that serves the same purpose. A list is not needed. --- RockMFR 01:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No need to make a list when a category will work. --Hemlock Martinis 01:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RockMFR. - SpLoT 04:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant to the category, as groups which aren't notable enough to merit an article probably shouldn't be recognized in a list anyway. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant and no added value.-- danntm ^T _C 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agreed. redundant. Resorb 16:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant page LW77 19:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 18:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Little Rascal[edit]

Hoax article: juvenile nonsense about a non-existent TV series Psychonaut3000 01:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. Hello32020 01:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article has the honor of being the only AfD I've ever Googled to return only Wikipedia mirrors! - Che Nuevara 02:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then Google Erdosville (AFD here) ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax.--Húsönd 03:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ASAP. Definitely false. --N Shar 03:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. --Metropolitan90 04:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, nonsense and fancruft.--Storm05 16:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, o-tay? NawlinWiki 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Foreign relations of Iran. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran's Islamic foreign policy[edit]

The whole concept for this article is flawed and violates NPOV. The title is misleading; it does not examine Iran's foreign policy (Foreign relations of Iran already does that). Instead, it alleges that Iran has created a religious police force in Iraq. There are no corroborating references, and all references listed are quotes from the Quran and speeches by Iranian leaders. No alternative viewpoints are presented, and there is no better content possible under this title or its previous title, "Basij" in Iraq. It also violates the no original research policy. LittleDan^talk 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep I agree that the article was lousy at its inception. However, it has evolved and been revamped. It isn't excellent yet promising.--Patchouli 01:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some redirects to the page need deletions.--Patchouli 02:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would need to be taken to WP:RFD and not here. --70.48.174.114 02:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Still has POV problems but it can probably be fixed eventually. --N Shar 03:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect The information is notable but does NOT warrant a separate article. The name is redundant to Foreign relations of Iran and the article should be merged with THAT article and this name redirected. --Jayron32 05:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Iran. It's not quite a POV fork, but is close, and definitely doesn't merit a separate article at this point. TheronJ 15:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I'm not sure if this is protocol for me to be commenting on my own deletion proposal, but I guess it would make more sense to make it a redirect to Foreign relations of Iran. Still I don't think there's any useful, non-OR to be used in that article. LittleDan^talk 17:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as per above. Davewild 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - the article just needs a good cleanup. --Ineffable3000 22:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect POV fork article with poor title. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even if cleaned up really well, would be redundant with the existing foreign relations page Bwithh 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect - There is the potential for an article here but the current version is a hopeless mess. Merge anything salvageable into Foreign relations of Iran. --Richard 05:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A lot of POV, gives off an anti Islamic tone, messy, horribly worded.Khosrow II 22:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Khosrow - Marmoulak 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars Imperial personnel[edit]

Given the existence of the far superior List of minor Star Wars Imperial characters and Category:Star Wars Imperial characters, I just don't see the need for this list, which gives virtually no description of any characters. BryanG^(talk) 02:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Deckiller 02:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect or assuming this information is too unreliable, or too minor just Redirect . FrozenPurpleCube 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and transwiki to Wookiepedia is also a possibility. FrozenPurpleCube 02:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Move it to another Wiki. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 06:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - the List of minor Star Wars Imperial characters is much better than this list. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delusions Of Grandeur[edit]

Band without an album release. Not notable enough for article. Delete exolon 02:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Che Nuevara 02:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could not find reliable sources to assert notability. Apparently there used to be another band with the very same name in the 90's, but it's unrelated. By the way, this article used to be a redirect to Delusion, but I think it's better delete rather than restore redirect.--Húsönd 02:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a google search turns up no less than 3 bands with this name on the first page, and NONE of them are this band. If you aren't even the most popular band with your name, you probably don't rate. Also, allmusic.com turns up a band called Delusions of Grandeur. The problem is a) it's not a notable band, with a single non-wide release CD and b) IT'S ALSO NOT THIS BAND. No notability, so delete... --Jayron32 05:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC Kevin 17:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Band should perhaps return when they have done something meaningful until then delete, but keep up the 'Delusions Of Grandeur' guys. --The Crying Orc 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted, hoax recreate. The games it referred to haven't even been announced. Garrett^Talk 20:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Dandia[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is unsourced speculation about a character who may appear in upcoming video games. This article was deleted via prod once before but then recreated, so I'm sending it through AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC

• Strong Delete Not only is this crystal balling, it's a clear hoax, as there is NO information about this character, and a VERY poorly written article. Wildthing61476 02:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I was reluctant to label it a hoax. Really, based on the writing, it feels closer to something made up at school one day. Not that it makes it any more encyclopedic, though. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can understand that, but unlike a new term or a game made up at school one day, that claims to be fact on an established game series, which to me is a blatant hoax. (Semantics and all that) Wildthing61476 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Why exactly is this not speediable under recreation? Also important to note that the creator of the article was blocked once for inserting dubious material and recreated the article with a note that read: "Please leave this page open. Do not deleted this whole page or you can be blocked by editing Wikipedia Not Michelle 3801, Michelle 7802, Michelle 4903, and Michelle 1004". Pascal.Tesson 02:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not speedyable because it wasn't deleted via AfD. It was deleted via WP:PROD, and recreating an article that was deleted through the PROD process is treated the same as a contested PROD: the next step in the process is to propose deletion at AfD, which I did. If it is deleted as a result of this AfD, and if it is then recreated, then it is a speedy candidate. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Makes sense. Note however that this particular article needs to go asap as it seems to be a clear hoax by a return vandal/prankster and damages the reputation of Wikipedia as the link provided below by N Shar shows. Pascal.Tesson 04:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unfortunately speedy delete A4 only applies if the article has gone through AfD. However, this article is clearly unsourced and a likely hoax. eaolson 02:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per above and per this discussion, which is the ONLY google hit outside of WP+mirrors. --N Shar 03:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Michelle3801 has been gaming the system with frequent contributions of hoax information, mostly related to Princess Daisy, often through sockpuppets, including articles such as this. It is a shame that so much process is spent dealing with what, to me, is essentially vandalism. Dancter 04:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Fictional character. And of the two games listed as her appearing in: one isn't even officially in dvelopment (Mario Kart Wii) and the other we know nothing except that it's in development (Mario Party 8). TJ Spyke 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Non-notable. --Ineffable3000 21:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it for things made up. Further, articles must have verfiable content not composed of original research. Don't forget that articles should be written in an encyclopedic manner consistent without acceptable standards of style. Just wanted to see how many policies/guidelines/essays I can link to in my justification.-- danntm ^T _C 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as a crystallized hoax. The article is also very poorly written, and looks like something someone made up in school one day. --Coredesat 04:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 05:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, Speedy Delete - Simply apalling article. The Kinslayer 08:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7--Konst.able^Talk 11:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunting of a House[edit]

Play that has only been performed at a middle school. No assertion of significance. No sources. Deprodded by anon. eaolson 02:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete A7, no notability whatsoever.--Húsönd 03:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per Husond. Gdo01 03:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy A7. No assertion of notability; no possibility of notability even. --N Shar 03:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure this would fall under A7, as the article is about a performance and not the people who performed in it (which would be ((db-group))). --Coredesat 08:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 10:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne University Labor Club[edit]

Self promoting, unencyclopaediac material, unverifiable, not notable. Overall factions are dealt with in National_Union_of_Students_of_Australia. Individual clubs are not notable, and unless we want wikipedia to turn into a Soapbox for every faction/faction/student politician in existence. Perhaps information on this club should be merged into the Student Unity page, and therefore into the whole structure about student politics in Australia. There is no reason why this, or any other campus club, should have a wiki presence. They have their own websites that can be linked from the faction they support or are part of Petrol pyro 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per non which is well stated. Could be a merge to the university entry at best.TheRanger 05:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems to be a long standing club of the left and I have found some sources. This from a review of "Free Radicals: On the Left in Postwar Melbourne" from a review in the Australian in 2003. "Turner and Gott were well-established leaders of the Left when I began my course in pure history and all of us were keen supporters of the lively student Labour Club. In this heyday of the Left, the club probably commanded some 800 members out of a total student enrolment of 8000. Ostensibly, the club was broad church -- hospitable to anyone left of centre. Many belonged also to the Student Christian Movement." A Google News Archive finds a reference in a biography of Gott see [5] Google Scholar comes up with further references see [6]. It seems to have been a notable organisation in postwar Melbourne politicl life. Capitalistroadster 06:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Can someone check whether any notable politicians or other figures were members of this club? (JROBBO 07:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete If this club is such a notable body in postwar Australian politics, the page should reflect this and not simply be a promotional page for the body. Hence controversies, and somewhat more of the wider history of the club should be on the page. This page just promotes the club today and provides no historical background. I also don't feel that a single mention in an article about a famous activist makes something noteworthy; a current google news serach finds nothing. A google web search [7] lists the wiki article as number two. Other hits involve other user contributed pages such as answers.com, with some having their neutrality disputed. At best it this is a dubious inclusion that probably should be brought into the Melbourne University Student Union page, at worst a conceited attempt by a group at self promotion through wiki abuse. --Petrol pyro 09:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteper above. MER-C 11:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Petrol Pyro. Montco 01:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Petrol Pyro. --AAA! 01:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i will make edits to make it more appropriate and less promotional 210.15.213.194 04:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider Melbourne University ALP Club DURABLE CHIMNEY 05:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Major political club at major university. Substantial historic documentation exists. --Centauri 14:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or complete rewrite. There is little evidence of club history on the current page, unlike the Melbourne University ALP Club (which seems dubious as well, and probably warrents attention). The current page is simply promotional of the club today.--130.194.13.106 05:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The "history" referred to above seems to that of the older Melbourne University ALP Club, assuming that is the older one. Given the historical content on the [Melbourne University ALP Club]] wiki page, it would seem this is only promotional. This is not to say that the other club page should be cleaned up and made NPOV compliant, but this one has no redeeming value it seems. --Mcjaf

{

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 02:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuador Guayaquil South Mission[edit]

wiki is not a history source for every mission of the church of jesus christ of LDS delete DesertSky85451 02:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added the following along with this:

• California Los Angeles Mission
• California Santa Rosa Mission
  • Comment - someone might also consider removing Category:Missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if this AfD goes through, since there is no need for that cat if there are no articles left for individual missions. -- 70.59.243.128 19:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Húsönd 03:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, add a references section. Give some time to allow for expansion. Smeelgova 04:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. Akradecki 15:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kevin 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and other articles on the same topic. Pavel Vozenilek 15:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical development of physical cosmology[edit]

This page is just a random collection of POV biographies. If any parts are thought to be salvagable, they should be merged with their individual biography pages. GoodSamaritan 02:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article Discussion[edit]

• Delete. Per the comments above. GoodSamaritan 02:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep It needs a lot more work, but is not particularly POV. BTW, Good Samaritan, it is not good form to nominate, then vote of an AFD. --Michael Johnson 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC) now Delete based on the debate below, it is obvious this article ain't going anywhere. --Michael Johnson 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article does not represent current scholarship on the subject. It was originally written at Biblical cosmology with the specific intention of bashing religion. Notice how the text focuses only in instances of perceived conflict between religion and science, while saying little regarding the actual scientific advancements... ... ... Before voting, editors should be aware that many 19th century ideas related with the conflict thesis are still popular among a general audience (which includes most WP editors), but are not supported anymore among historians of science. Please check the conflict thesis article if you can. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The section about Giordano Bruno is a good example of the "POVness" of the article. Bruno gave no real contribution to the "historical development of physical cosmology", since his work wasn't scientific at all. I think he has a section devoted to him only because of his problems with the church. Moreover, the text does not mention that when Bruno was burned at the stake "there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy". It is also not mentioned that many believe his condemnation actually "had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology." (see source: *here*). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was about the implications of Biblical cosmology, not "actual scientific advancements". Bruno was a "natural philosopher" and not a scientist; the scientific method was not developed until centuries after Bruno's gruesome execution. The original contributor stated these points, but they were segregated when these paragraphs were removed to this article. The original contributor also stated that Bruno championed "free speech", but never stated specifically why Bruno was executed. If you have a reference stating that Bruno was instead burned alive as an advocate of free speech, you should have added the reference instead of sweeping multiple sections under the rug. --DixiePixie 09:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo and Copernicus were the true "natural philosophers" of the time, not Bruno. But you are right in pointing that, as I also mentioned, the text was originally related with the "Biblical cosmology" article. Your reply was important because I forgot to consider this when I wrote one phrase above (now stroked). But it doesn't change the problematic bias of the text, a bias that becomes clearer when those sections are inserted on more proper articles for them. Notice that one subsection of the text from "Biblical cosmology" was inserted in the article "Relationship between religion and science" (instead of moved here), and the text immediately brought POV concerns on that page too - see *here*. Even after changes from the editors of that page to reduce the bias, the POV tag is still above that section of the article. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who appointed you to designate the true "natural philosophers" of history? Who appointed you to designate "bad scholarship" as you claimed in your revert war at Biblical cosmology? These are simply your biased POV's. We would all probably agree that Bruno left little, if any, evidence of adhering to the scientific method that was developed centuries after his death, but that only precludes him from being considered a "scientist" by the more modern definition. We would all probably agree that Bruno's published work was not nearly as significant as that provided by the long careers of Galileo and Copernicus, but that does not preclude him from being considered a "natural philosopher". It is worth repeating that I "never stated specifically why Bruno was executed". The more in depth references I read stated that no conclusion could be certain about the charges upon which Bruno was convicted due to a lack of primary source material from the convicting (religious) court. Regardless of the specific reason, I believe that, just like the scientific method, Bruno's pleas for freedom of speech are actually more relevant to scientific advancement than Bruno's brilliant extension of Copernican concepts. There was no need to strike through your "problems with the church" comment. His fiery demise is exactly what earned Bruno's inclusion in Biblical cosmology. As for your latter remarks about where my contributions belong and "bias", please read my "vote" below. --Arbeiter 11:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section about Bruno belongs neither here nor in the original article, but for different reasons. An article about "Biblical cosmology" is simply not the place for a collection of biographies about historical figures. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Comment. This article was not created to be useful to anyone. These paragraphs are actually a subset of paragraphs torn away from Biblical cosmology where they were used to offer historical support for specific Biblical interpretations. They were placed here without a meaningful category so that few would ever see them. Once these supporting paragraphs were safely exiled, the original article predictably fell apart into its current form at the hands of less experienced editors. This "divide and conquer" strategy employed by ScienceApologist, Leinad-Z, and Dragons_flight is simply shameful. --DixiePixie 09:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the author and defender of the text left Wikipedia, there is little point in keeping it. A merge would fail sooner or later given the type of editors it has attracted. --DixiePixie 10:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These sections were initially moved to Cosmology by ScienceApologist because they did no fit the original article. But the text was also regarded as off-topic by the editors of the Cosmology article, so this new article was created (by Dragons_flight) to accommodate it. Your comment above is a blatant assumption of bad faith toward experienced WP editors. No more conspiracy theories, please. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would hesitate to accuse Dragons_flight of involvement in the "divide and conquer" strategy used on Biblical cosmology; instead, see my vote below. As for the other two... Given their past contributions and that they are such "experienced WP editors", it is hard for me to accept that other scenarios are likely. They engaged in a revert war to scatter the historical sections of Biblical cosmology to places where they were off topic, non-cohesive, and taken out of context to a degree that even confused Leinad-Z; see his strike-through above. --Arbeiter 11:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbeiter, as I just found out, DixiePixie and YOU seem to be one and the same person. I also noticed that the whole so-called "revert war" you mention all the time appears to have been promoted by you using another sock puppet (Witch-King) to revert ScienceApologist’s move. After realizing these things, I feel little need to reply to your accusations. Maybe you should look in a mirror to see who is really using "shameful strategies" around here. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite an accusation. I would like to see you present your "evidence". Is it all circumstantial speculation? Do you feel the accusation is enough to justify such a claim? You should note that everything I claimed about you is backed up through article histories available to everyone. I think you're just floating this idea to distract readers from your behavior. --Arbeiter 00:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users can easily check to see if they agree with me by reading the edit history of Arbeiter, DixiePixie, and Witch-King. I don't need to distract readers from anything, since your conspiracy theory is completely bogus. My engagement in what you like to say was "my" "revert war", for example, was limited to a single edit. And I don’t know how you can assume that ScienceApologist decided to move your text as some kind of evil scheme to protect religion, the bible, whatever... As a materialist, (read his user page), I really don’t think he would be inclined to defend any sort of biblical cosmology. Also, as his name implies, he does apologetics in favor of science; if anything, it can be said that he devotes his time in Wikipedia to defend science against religion, precisely the opposite of what you seems to be thinking.

There were basically two problems with those sections you wrote on Biblical cosmology: (1) they were off-topic regarding the original article, (2) they were (and are) POV. Personally, I doubt ScienceApologist was much concerned with problem number 2, but he rightly noticed problem number 1 and moved the sections that did not belong there accordingly. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the call to attention at the top of the page --Arbeiter 15:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you had no real rebuttal, after all. You didn't know very obvious facts about ScienceApologist, it is as if you haven't even take the time to carefully read our userpages, let alone our edit history, before claiming that "it is hard for me to accept that other scenarios are likely.". Well, other scenarios were likely. Your edits were moved here because they did not fit the original article, not because of some conspiracy. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given your convoluted conspiracy theories above, are you actually complaining about conspiracy theories? In case you didn't catch it, Arbeiter has left Wikipedia. It might be safe to stop waiting for Arbeiter's rebuttal. --DixiePixie 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- next to no resemblance to the unwritten article which is needed on the subject, but it may be a start if someone picks it up. --Pjacobi 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I think it is easier to inspire someone to write an article from scratch which is obviously lacking rather than try and figure out whether it is worth their time to hobble out decent text from an inherently flawed article. (If someone deleted the Manhattan Project article I am willing to wager that there'd be a better article there within two weeks than there has been for a year.) Just my two cents on this issue. --Fastfission 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am the author of this text. It appears to me that nobody was actually interested in creating this article. Instead, Dragons_flight exiled the text here because it did not fit where ScienceApologist moved it. The intention of this text was to "offer historical support for specific Biblical interpretations" at Biblical_cosmology. The supported Biblical interpretations served as a counter-balance to the Biblical interpretations there claiming the Bible foretold the big bang theory. I would have written this text differently for other subjects, such as the Historical development of physical cosmology. --Arbeiter 11:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - complete scrap and rewrite --The page physical cosmology is large enough to warrent not including all the details of the historical development. Thus I should like to think that there would be good reason to keep this article as s long as the time and interest of those better aquainted with the history of science were willing to help improve it. As a concept, it's definately interesting and worthy of encyclopedic attention. As an article it needs work. --Homecomputer 16:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Edit.. I agree with Andrew C, probably easier to completely scrap and create entirely new.--Homecomputer∴Peace 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Home Computer that the topic is notable, but the arguments above have convinced me that the text does not match the topic. We need to start from scratch, and I deleting for the time being is the best way to go (as opposed to removing most of the content to create a stub). If we had peopel committed to upgrading this article, then I'd support their work, but as is, I don't believe we can keep this article.--Andrew c 04:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.. now that I think about it it's probably easier to scrap and rewrite. --Homecomputer∴Peace 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see anything salvagable here. A real history of physical cosmology could be an interesting article but it would require taking quite a different approach (starting before Copernicus, for one thing, and covering a much wider range of views, for another, to say nothing of better usage of secondary sources). --Fastfission 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely out of place sock puppet discussion[edit]

Attention: I now believe that user:DixiePixie is actually user:Arbeiter disguised in a sock puppet account. Arbeiter was the original creator of the text that we are currently evaluating. DixiePixie is a new account whose main purpose in Wikipedia appears to be agreeing with Arbeiter's POV. "Both" are participating in this discussion. (The account user:Witch-King may be an even clearer example of Sock puppetry by Arbeiter, but he didn't show up yet in this specific discussion.) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Update: Wow... OMG... is it possible that even GoodSamaritan is also a sockpuppet? Arbeiter accused GoodSamaritan of being MY sockpuppet bellow... And, looking at GoodSamaritan's edit history for the first time, he certainly seems to behave like a sockpuppet!! At first I was in shock and didn’t know what to think, but then I realized: what if GoodSamaritan, (which is a new account made after the text by Arbeiter was moved against his will for this article), was created to be some kind of straw man sock puppet for Arbeiter? What if this yet-another-sockpuppet is also part of Arbeiter's plan to delete the current article and merge its content back to the original page? So far, it is the most logical conclusion that I could reach. It is either that or I'm being completely paranoid with this whole sockpuppet issue. There are way too many apparent socks hanging around here. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 11:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite an accusation. I would like to see you present your "evidence". Is it all circumstantial speculation? Do you feel the accusation is enough to justify such a claim? You should note that everything I claimed about you is backed up through article histories available to everyone. I think you're just floating this idea to distract readers from your behavior as discussed below. --Arbeiter 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both sockpuppets were made after your controversial edits to Biblical cosmology and Biblical literalism. You barely changed the user page when you made DixiePixie. Both sockpuppets hold your sacreligious POVs. Both sockpuppets defended your articles that only its mother could love. All three accounts block vote together. Its pretty obvious. --GoodSamaritan 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the approach is just a bit more elegant, (see the talk pages): it seems that Arbeiter wants us to believe that he and these "new users" that came out of nowhere to agree with him in polemic issues are becoming great friends after a few edits together. Following that line, Arbeiter allegedly became so impressed by DixiePixie’s user page that he "copied" it [8]... Arbeiter also welcomed Wich-King [9] and took the liberty to edit Witch's userpage [10] ("to protect him from WP 'oppressive' rules", as was stated in the welcome message"). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbeiter, other users can easily check to see if they agree with me (by reading the edit history of "Arbeiter", "DixiePixie", and "Witch-King", as user GoodSamaritan just did update: as explained in the update of my 1st post, GoodSamaritan may actually be Arbeiter's straw man sock puppet). And I don't need to "distract" readers from anything, since your conspiracy theory is completely bogus (see my complete reply when you repeat the same questions in the debate above.) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the last couple of months, there were ~3000 new users/day that came out of nowhere. I want you to understand that they are all my sockpuppets. Everyone you ever clash with will be my sockpuppet. In fact, you are my straw puppet... Instead of saying "the approach is just a bit more elegant", might you mean "This is not likely, since it actually refutes User:GoodSamaritan's accusation"? There is nothing wrong with reaching out to new users, or offering sympathetically worded corrections according to the guidelines. User:GRBerry and User:HomeComputer did it for me. In turn, I did it for DixiePixie, Freddulany, and Witch-King. You should try it; it's good to be friendly sometimes. It doesn't indicate an ever-widening sock puppet ring. --Arbeiter 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, notice that I haven't yet presented the stronger reasons that make me think Wich-King and DixiePixie are your sockpuppets, I'm saving this information for latter (i.e. for if/when a more official WP investigation happens, or at least when an administrator steps in this discussion.). You are right in saying that GoodSamaritan's weak version of the sock puppetry accusation was refuted by you. From the moment I read Goodsamaritan's reply, it was obvious to me that it was an incomplete response that you were more than prepared to rebut. So, I stepped forward to supplement his post by noting that you were being more astute than GoodSamaritan seemed to assume. (PS.: Considering that I now think GoodSamaritan may actually be your straw man sock puppet, It's no wonder why his view was so easy to rebut in the first place.) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 11:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret evidence!!! Why not just tell us to trust that you are always correct? He rebutted your accusations just as easily. Are you, in fact, Arbeiter's straw puppet? --DixiePixie 18:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think others should evaluate whole the situation and make their own minds about it. No one should trust in my "secret evidence" yet, since I haven’t presented it. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 18:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: I now believe that GoodSamaritan is actually Leinad-Z disguised in a sock puppet account. Leinad-Z and ScienceApologist teamed-up to weaken Biblical_literalism, and then GoodSamaritan delivered the blow that completely reversed the article's meaning. A similar one-two punch tactic was also used by Leinad-Z & co. to completely reverse the meaning of Dedication to Pope Paul III. This is especially telling since a link to "Dedication to Pope Paul III" sat very uncomfortably next to Leinad-Z's nearly opposite statement here. GoodSamaritan is a new account whose main purpose in Wikipedia appears to be agreeing with Leinad-Z's POV and acting as a bad hand account. "Both" are participating in this discussion. (Other accounts also appear to be good examples of Sock puppetry by Leinad-Z, but they have not yet surfaced in this specific discussion.) Leinad-Z & co. block voted twice in this discussion page alone (early support for deletion + sockpuppet allegations). It seems that Leinad-Z wants us to believe that a "new user" came out of nowhere to agree with him in polemic issues including the account's first two edits. Following that line, after a few edits together, Leinad-Z allegedly became so impressed with yet another sockpuppet account as an "editor and a WP administrator" that Leinad-Z went straight to him for "advice, and maybe more direct assistance" instead of going through an established process. Leinad-Z & co. also vigorously defend yet another sockpuppet account, ScienceApologist. On this page, Leinad-Z even explains ScienceApologist's motivations for co-trashing Biblical cosmology. Leinad, you're not supposed to let it slip out that you're privy to your sockpuppet's motivations. How can you look in the mirror, Leinad-Z & co.? --Arbeiter 15:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(*I just want to make clear for a more distracted reader that Arbeiter intended the above comments as a mock argument. For example: he pretended to accuse both an editor with more that 10,000 edits and a wikipedia administrator of being sockpuppets... Also, GoodSamaritan never participated in any edit or discussion at Biblical literalism). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 23:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would not necessarily have to be a mock argument if you actually are "Leinad-Z & co." instead of one individual. --DixiePixie 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look familiar? I almost admire the subtle, rhetorical tactics Leinad-Z employed, but we should see through them and understand that such speculation can be employed without merit. Obviously, all these accounts couldn't be one person, but it made a suspicious-looking case for it anyway. That said, while preparing the mock argument above, I noticed a couple amazingly coincidental edits that were hard to swallow. Now, I'm not sure whether Leinad-Z was offering his accusations as a smoke screen or actually shifting the spotlight to hide questionable behavior. With the mock argument in mind, anybody with the time should compare GoodSamaritan's first two edits with Leinad-Z's edits of the same articles to see how one article relates to this edit by Leinad-Z. I was involved with all three places at some point. My low tolerance for questionable behavior was surpassed long ago at Wikipedia. As some of you now know from my past edits, it is my desire to wash my hands of Wikipedia, and so this will be a parting shot. For everyone, I hope something worthwhile arises from the wreckage. --Arbeiter 15:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbeiter, there are several paradoxes that arise if one wants to consider GoodSamaritan as my sockpuppet. For example: the first edit by GoodSamaritan, the one used as "evidence" that he may be my sock, seems to be very odd behavior from "Leinad-Z & co". Why? Because the link you provided above makes clear that I had a sourced quotation by two historians of science that would very easily allow the modification of your biased text. It makes no sense to think that, instead of taking the easy and policy-approved route for changing that article, I would go through the trouble of creating a sockpuppet account and its elaborated userpage to edit it. BTW, as you very well know, much before GoodSamarintan's first edit I had already clearly told you that I would need to change the article's POV problems eventually. However, the most noticeable problem with your new theory may be that bringing the very issue of sockpuppetry (as I did at the start of this discussion) would be the most stupid thing to do if I were trying to hide a sockpuppet myself. Gosh, I was even trying to bring the current discussion to the attention of administrators, (again an incredibly stupid thing to do if what you say was in fact true). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 00:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you allegedly did come back "to change the article's POV problems" in the guise of a sock puppet. Also, your own arguments here (including the one you use as the "most noticeable problem with [the sock puppet] theory") apply equally for your accusations of GoodSamaritan being Arbeiter's sock puppet. Going to a WP administrator with which you share an edit history (and therefore possible association) is also suspicious behavior. --DixiePixie 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't apply "equally" at all. Arbeirter was trying to defend himself from suspicion of sockpuppetry and needed something to try even out the discussion on the topic. On the other hand, I had no reason to put my alleged sock under the spotlight. All the time, I was perfectly aware that the argumentation you "both" were making toward me and ScienceApologist was completely flawed. Read again the deletion discussion and you’ll see that, as soon as Arbeirter tried to imply that I was denouncing sockpuppetry as a "rhetorical strategy" to hide my "shameful behavior", I wrote a key reply showing the allegations were unfounded. Until now, no one was able to rebut. Also, any attempt of deleting this article and merging its content back from were it was removed would necessarily be much harder than a simple NPOV edit. Especially because the move would be against the commonsense notion that articles should stay their respective topics. The fact is that I needed no socks, while Arbeirter did need them if he wanted to see his text back where he edited. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It does apply equally since your were trying to defend yourself against suspicion of misbehavior in the form of a "divide and conquer" tactic. "Until now" meaning that I recently provided its rebuttal? Sorry. I would have offered the rebuttal earlier if you had invited me to defend myself against your accusations, but instead you simply started accusing the new users who ever sided with Arbeiter without even leaving them notice of your accusations. You were here arguing with yourself. HomeComputer stopped by to ask you to take it elsewhere, but you kept arguing with yourself anyway. I guess you have a hard time feeling lonely. Again, your alleged motivation is pure speculation and even contradictory. Arbeiter needed no socks for this purpose, because Arbeiter never even asked for a merger; he voted to "delete". In fact, nobody has voted for a "merge", and this accusation taints the discussion so that fewer will have the courage to vote that way. (They might just get themselves added to your ever-widening sock puppet allegations.) Again, questionable tactics on your part. --DixiePixie 22:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously claiming that the note you "recently provided" is a rebuttal? Your comment there is only saying that I shouldn’t complain about the baseless accusations you were making toward me and ScienceApologist. It makes nothing to change the fact that you were completely wrong. Again, the suspicion of misbehavior was bogus, I knew exactly how to respond to that, and I did so effectively in the discussion above. It was soon after that key comment (when I mention that ScienceApologist is a materialist) that Arbeiter made the desperate accusation that I was the one using a sockpuppet; it seems that he really didn't know how to reply to that, (and so does you). Also, Dixiepixie, the edit summary of your own first edit in this page reads: “Merge back to its orginal location” [11] So, please stop pretending that there was no intention to move the text back to the original article. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 00:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only repeated it. You were the one who said, "Until now, no one was able to rebut." Until now here means the opposite recently happened. With the phrase, until now, you led me to believe that I had already provided the rebuttal, and so I did not even look for this reply. Looking for it now, I think you're either asking me to defend a quote made by Arbeiter or defend the text written by Arbeiter. In case you didn't catch it, Arbeiter left Wikipedia at 15:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC). You have already missed the chance to discuss anything with Arbeiter. As for me, I am only in this discussion to defend myself against your sock puppet accusations. It was you who originally resorted to "desperate accusations" of sock puppetry so that you could "feel little need to reply to" Arbeiter's accusations. Well, it's embarrassing that I didn't think to look back at my edit summary, but great that you found it. This is further proof that I am not Arbeiter's sock puppet: we voted differently! In Arbeiter's discussion page, I asked Arbeiter to "come back", and "defend your edits". I thought my encouragement and a merger would get Arbeiter contributing again. Now that Arbeiter voted to "delete", and especially now that Arbeiter left Wikipedia, I feel ambivalent about the merger. In fact, I will change my vote. It's very frustrating that my efforts to retain a Wikipedian not only failed, but got me stuck with Leinad-Z's sock puppet accusations. --DixiePixie 10:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't want to challenge my reply for Arbeiter, please be consistent with this decision and stop spreading the false theory that I needed some stunt to hide shameful behavior. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 18:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, once you accused me of being a sock puppet, you trapped me into exposing holes in your style of logic. Your type of logic could be employed against almost any user, and as continuously demonstrated, it can even be turned against you yourself. --DixiePixie 23:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT the place to be throwing around accusations. You people are getting WAY OFF TOPIC. If you want to go accuse somebody of sock puppetry gather your information and take it to the appropriate forum. In his defense Arbeiter and I got into some seriously heated disagreement over at another Biblical article but there was no evidence of any sock puppetry though I could tell how mad he was gettin he probably wanted to. ;) hehe. --Homecomputer 16:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homecomputer, you are probably right in saying that this discussion got too long, sorry. I don’t know exactly how one should deal with suspicion of sock puppetry in Wikipedia. Yesterday, before Arbeiter's last accusation, I tried to contact an administrator about this specific issue, and I even asked if he could take charge of this whole situation, but he didn’t reply yet. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for a delete discussion, you're really only supposed to comment on the article, but that's ok, live and learn, you do the right thing by going to the sock puppet page. 'brigado. --Homecomputer∴Peace 16:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home Computer, thanks for the kind reply. But I still want to make one (last?) comment/question that is related with your first post. I did some research to find which specific discussion you were mentioning when you said that "Arbeiter was involved and there was no evidence of sock puppetry". My best guess is that you were talking about this AFD discussion for Biblical literalism. Am I right? If so, can you please review the participation of a certain User:Millstone in that discussion while keeping the concept of straw man sock puppet in mind? --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 23:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not review the material. Again, this is not the place to bring up or discuss such issues. The appropriate places to raise such issues are talk pages (click on someone's name) and the sock puppet forums which you've allready found. Peace.--Home Computer∴Peace 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got it. Actually, I have presented my suspicions but have been (from the beginning) restraining myself from advancing the evidence in regard to that. Most of the discussion now actually consists of me defending myself from accusations by Arbeiter and DixiePixie. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 09:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leinad-Z: Since you have openly questioned my gender, I feel it is no longer off topic to ask you a personal question. Does somebody pay you to provide censorship at Wikipedia? Your editing efforts obviously exceed an unpaid interest in history. By shielding those traditionally associated with the church while leaving Martin Luther to appear as the lone holdout against scientific advancement, you have led me to believe that you are a paid censor of the Catholic church. After all, this exception is completely inconsistent with your stated POV of dispelling the "conflict thesis". Beside this point, let me see if I understand (the up-to-date version of) your accusations. You want people to believe that:

• Arbeiter voted to "delete" this content, but secretly maneuvers to "merge" this content back to the original page.
• Although Arbeiter lacked the patience to join a revert war to defend his own edits or even stay with Wikipedia, Arbeiter actually cultivated an account to look like your sock puppet, because Arbeiter somehow knew that one day, you would start a round of sock puppet allegations, and wanted to be ready to turn the tables on you. Following that line, Arbeiter^* then nominated this article for deletion with the foreknowledge that it would lure you into the discussion to make sock puppet accusations just in time to beat Arbeiter's pre-declared retirement date.
• Arbeiter created the account named Millstone simply to join the Biblical literalism AfD, but then objected to the vote Millstone provided because the account was too new. (Wow... OMG... is it possible that even Freddulany is also Arbeiter's sock puppet? After all, just like Millstone, Freddulany agreed with Arbeiter's understanding that Biblical literalism exists. Arbeiter offered friendly encouragement to the new user just like Witch-King, and even declared that he valued Freddulany's opinion. After all, by using competing sock puppets, Arbeiter^* brought the vote tally closer to his own position -- to abstain. Don't you see it? Or am I being as paranoid as you?)

Leinad-Z: Do you really think this is the simplest explanation possible? There are simpler explanations: Perhaps your overbearing approach to editing and disregard for the discussion process is spawning troll accounts by unknown persons?

Arbeiter: Perhaps your sharply pointed mannerisms in the discussion pages are doing the same.

Leinad-Z & Arbeiter: Are you discussing your edits with your personal friends and co-workers? If so, might one of them be attempting to support you? ...antagonize you? I guess the simplest & most obvious explanation of all might be that people actually exist with POV's aligning with your apparent opponent. Of course, I feel confident that I exist, but if the rest of Leinad-Z's accusations are true, I would like to tell both Arbeiter and Leinad-Z to look in the mirror, and say hello to each other. You both missed the opportunity to discuss your differences, and pull each other towards reality. If you had spent half this effort in a discussion page for the articles in question rather than hatching sock puppet accusations for each other, you two probably would have created something worth reading. For my part, I still maintain that dumping this content here was completely inappropriate. Leinad-Z should have taken his concerns to the discussion page once Witch-King reverted it back (even if you always suspected he was a sock puppet), and there was no attempt made to make this material appropriate for this article's subject; it was just dropped off here as if this page were the city dump. If ScienceApologist really wants this page to happen, he should have taken an active hand in it; throwing out the suggestion is not a sufficient effort. As for my apparent coordination with Arbeiter, it was the wikify tag that lured me into Biblical literalism's discussion page. The rest was documented on our discussion pages. As for always agreeing with Arbeiter, this is a fallacy. If I had followed his editing early on, I would have agreed with HomeComputer that his definition at Biblical literalism was off base and this threw the entire article into confusion. I also would have objected to some POV statements in the Darwin section of Biblical cosmology. However, because I only investigated this debacle after Arbeiter announced his retirement, these had become mute points since they had been deleted by the time I became involved. --DixiePixie 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to leave further discussion about the sockpuppets for a more appropriate place. Just defending myself from the yet-another ad-hominem attack: in this edit, I am reverting Witch-King’s previous reversion of the move. To leave the section about Martin Luther in the article was actually ScienceApologist’s decision. It seems to me that the section about Luther was somewhat more connected to the original topic of Biblical cosmology, since it simply mentioned Luther's interpretation of the bible without being a report of yet-another "instance of conflict". That said, maybe the section would have to go soon or latter, anyway. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess arguing with yourself was more fun. Don't pretend you were above the ad-hominem attacks. Your ad-hominem attacks against me lured me back here. Luther used a scriptural reference from the Biblical book of Joshua as evidence that Copernicus was a fool and actually a astrologer instead of astronomer. How could this not be an instance of conflict between science and religion? Once the rest was gone, it was guaranteed to face opposition by the first Lutheran to see it. I wouldn't doubt if the person who deleted it was a Lutheran who saw Luther being isolated as the lone holdout against scientific advancement. --DixiePixie 23:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

PLEASE PUT ALL COMMENTS re: THE ARTICLE DELETION IN THE FIRST SECTION

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

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

The result was no consensus for merge or deletion. Merges are not governed by AfD and anyone is free to try that in the normal way. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fold system[edit]

I originally proposed this article for deletion for being fancruft and not establishing notability. It was contested by User:Tailkinker1972 who left this note on the talk page:

"This page has been nominated for deletion, due to it being considered 'Fancruft'. I have looked it over, and am prepared to rebuff.

Wikipedia defines fancruft as, among other things, "material which is typically lacking in quality, selectively biased, of a poor nature and of interest only to a small audience in the respective field."

I feel that this article is free of bias. It most likely is of interest only to a small audience, but so do many other articles on the subject of Macross, including the other articles on Macross/Robotech technology. As for its quality or nature, I invite others to improve on the quality of the article, rather than merely slapping it with a deletion tag.

I invite discussion.

Tailkinker1972 23:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)."[reply]

The article was again proposed for deletion by User:Desertsky85451 with the concern of "device from fictional universe, check mergers." Thus, I am taking it to AFD. Khatru2 03:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe it clearly states at the beginning of the article that it's fictional. However, if someone has a page for Robotech technology, I suggest it and articles like it be moved there. --Hemlock Martinis 03:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does every item or device from every fictional universe deserve its own page? DesertSky85451 03:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect There's got to be a bigger umbrella article this would fit under better. If not, there SHOULD be one... --Jayron32 05:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect along with Reflex Cannon and any other similar articles to a new article, perhaps Robotechnology. Information is certainly verifiable within canon (Japanese anime, dubbed anime and books alike), but probably not worth its own article. Confusing Manifestation 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with User:ConMan -- suggest that a suitable editor be sought to initialise Robotechnology so that this can be merged -- Simon Cursitor 13:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have easy enough access to the anime or time enough to start the article myself, I'll happily help once it's started, especially with references to the novels. Confusing Manifestation 13:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hemlock. Robotech and Macross both satisfy notability guidelines in their own right, and this article isn't inherently different (at least, in nature) than warp drive. I don't think we're in a position to be arbitrors of which strain of fictional technology is worth keeping and which isn't, based solely on the size of a particular fanbase. Kevin 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My decision wasn't based on the fanbase, but rather the amount of source material - Macross is a series of fixed length, and the fold drive is only significant in a few parts of it - the article says most of the things I can think of to say offhand about it. Besides that, there have been a lot of things said about the warp drive, in and out of the show, whereas I don't know if there's been that much external interest in the fold system that you could give much of an "in the real world" view. Confusing Manifestation 18:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect as per Confusing Manifestation. --Limetom 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- RoninBK_ETC 04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge should not be it's own article, and I question if it's even worthy to merge. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Confusing Manifestation. Good reasoning. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge Warp drive has entered into popular culture. This ain't no warp drive. This stuff falls under fiction guidelines which suggests that they should be merged. I would also like to note that we shouldn't confuse the notability of a series with the notability of a plot device within the series. "Macross is notable. Fold system is part of Macross. Therefore, Fold system is notable." Is akin to saying "Alice is a lawyer. Alice thinks highly of Bob. Therefore, Bob must know the law." --Kunzite 01:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bus war[edit]

Seems to be a neologism with a good chunk of original research. The only source given doesn't even use the term "bus war." Non-verifiable neologism. --Wafulz 03:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Needs clean-up, but a cursory Google search turns up a few reputable sources using the term prominently: South Manchester Reporter [12], icBirmingham.com [13] and the Beeb [14]. Caknuck 04:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, could use better formatting and an expanded references section. Smeelgova 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Bus deregulation. It is redundant with that article. Incidentally, both articles suck, and a merge could improve both by providing more information and context. The Bus deregulation article is in serious need of rewrite, referencing, and possibly renaming; whatever happens however, we DON'T need 2 articles that deal essentially with the same topic. The topic IS encyclopedic, but the final article needs serious work. --Jayron32 05:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge — as per User:Jayron32. Leaning more towards merge, though. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 20:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urfanism[edit]

There is only one link to Urfanism on Google, indicating that this is non-notable with no possibly of finding reliable sources Jeff3000 03:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete A7. VSCA with no assertion of notability. --Daniel Olsen 04:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per A7 and WP:SNOW --N Shar 04:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Brim 04:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. Smeelgova 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• This is a religion that warrents being listed on the List of Religions page of wikipedia (BHCMST)

• Comment. Please provide evidence for this assertion. How many followers does the religion have? Where is the proof of this (independent figures, preferably from a governmental census)? Where is there a published reference to the religion? Etc. --N Shar 04:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I'll see your A7 and raise you a G12. Much of the text is C&P from urfanism.com. Caknuck 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• urfanism.com seems to provide enough information to back up this listing. as long as they represent themselves well enough, they should be on the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.167.144 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment. Please see my comment above. Urfanism.com does not provide answers to any of the questions I have asked there, nor to others that must have answers before the religion is considered notable. --N Shar 04:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that, according to WP:ORG, "Internal documents cannot be used as an assertion of notability". --N Shar 04:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Ranks high on the nonsense scale, too. Anyone want to tag it with a speedy? MER-C 10:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and tagged as such via CSD A7. Wildthing61476 13:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm declining to speedy it, as I feel this is not about the group of people so much as it is about their philosophy. But I'll leave the speedy tag on in case another admin feels differently. -- Merope 13:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, would speedy it but I'd like an AFD decision so it can be G4'd when it is (inevitably) recreated. NawlinWiki 14:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with NawlinWiki, let's run the full AfD to establish the precedent for G4. Still, this is unverified soapbox material.-- danntm ^T _C 17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• So I guess that religious cults based upon murderers can be listed on here, but not Urfanism? It was listed under Urfanism, which is its name, and was also listed on the List of Religions under NRM (new religious movement). What is the harm in that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhcmst (talk • contribs) .

• Comment - Please read the Wikipedia policies on verifiability and reliable sources as well as notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Jeff3000 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Lutz[edit]

Vanity article already deleted once by Wikipedia administrators, and resurrected as it was. As it stands, this article does not belong in the Wikipedia. Toring

• Speedy Delete G4. Simple recreation. --Daniel Olsen 04:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple recreation, but since it was previously speedied rather than deleted under AFD it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion (under G4 at least). Yomangani^talk 09:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete again under A7. So tagged. MER-C 10:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've declined the speedy deletion. The speedy deletion had already been contested at Talk:Al Lutz. Please find other rationales for deleting this article. Uncle G 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:BIO. Akradecki 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable (WP:BIO) QuiteUnusual 20:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable WP:BIO. Al Lutz is probably the most noteworthy internet blog writers on the theme park business. His blog is often referenced in Los Angeles Times stories concerning Disney for the past six years. I believe it is important that his entry in Wikipedia remain as it allows readers to understand why he is a credible source.Spike 05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable WP:BIO. This author is the editor of a well-known website tracking Disney, especially its Parks and Resorts Anaheim property. His column is frequently quoted in the media:
  • An article on the possible change of Tom Sawyer Island ^[1] reached various news organizations, including the Los Angeles Times ^[2], the LATimes editorial desk (no reference: LATimes editorials are not archived), and numerous other publications.
  • An article on the alleged behavior of Lindsay Lohan at a Disneyland party ^[3] caught the attention of Lohan's publicist, and IMDB.com ^[4]
  • A search of the Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register archives shows Lutz frequently quoted, and his website cited, in regards to Disneyland Resort policies or developments.
  • The subject is therefore notable as being newsworthy and independently reviewed. --Ridesim 03:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I have updated the main article page to reorganize content and more clearly link the subject to the WP:BIO standards. Hopefully, the editions will further demonstrate the notability of the subject.--Ridesim 07:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as notable. I guess it's a borderline case. Al's notable to disneyphiles, at least. Disney has a pretty big footprint in Wikipedia (see Category:Disney); if you're going to have articles on DisneySpeak and Donaldism, I don't think Al Lutz is that much of a stretch. John Callender 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this entry is a pure publicity piece. Lutz is simply a blogger, and has no true bearing on the Disney Company. It is non-notable, serves to inflate his website traffic, and is not an appropriate article for an encyclopedia. 151.151.21.100 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, under the category of "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers". Without Al Lutz, Michael Eisner might never have been ousted from Disney, a Dow 30 company. His reportage is quite influential within the Disney community. See also Ridesim's points.--Plainsong 02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a very influencial writer in regards to one of the most, if not the most, high profile companies in the world. This person's writings were used and referenced as a major influence behind Roy Disney's SaveDisney website during the high profile Roy Disney/Michael Eisner fued. And the world wouldn't have known about the Lindsay Lohan Disneyland party antics if it wasn't for this columnist. --Marriedtofilm 22:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Berg[edit]

bio page for NN-weather channel personality delete DesertSky85451 03:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO. --Daniel Olsen 04:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO. MER-C 11:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — does not meet enough/any of WP:BIO. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LIFE's 100 Most Important Events of the Second Millennium[edit]

Essentially a copy of Life's top 10 events of the millenium, with a link to the other 90. This isn't really the place to mirror some other organization's lists. --Wafulz 03:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Also nominating LIFE's 100 Most Important People of the Second Millennium for similar reasons. --Wafulz 03:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete both per nom. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. --Aaron 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is probably a copyright violation anyways; I'm pretty sure that subjective lists ("Top N widgets...") are copyrightable. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, WP:NOT. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 06:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the EVENTS Keep or Catagorize the PEOPLE Why?? Because the people list, as it stands now is just a numerical list of the 100 top people Life, a major magazine, thinks are important from 1001-2000. It links to the appropriate wiki pages for the meat of info. I don't see a problem with having a page for people who know of the article, but who may not know who exactly is on it, and they want to learn more. EnsRedShirt 06:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As I stated above, I'm pretty sure that the list is a copyrighted work of Life Magazine. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete iff remains in substantially current form These articles about someone's lists of the "Top N of Foo" are delicate issues. Generally such articles are acceptable when the creator of the list is notable, and the article is discusses how the list was formed, controversies with the selection process, and the significance and impact of the list. It is not acceptable to just regurtitate the list in the article, partially because of copyright concerns, partly because bald lists are unencyclopedic.-- danntm ^T _C 02:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Er, your bolded iff statement doesn't make too much sense. --Wafulz 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification I'm quite simply stating that why such articles are not inherently doomed, in this form, it should be deleted.-- danntm ^T _C 16:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Oh wow nevermind, I completely misread your comment in the first place >.< --Wafulz 02:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not created yet another non-defining category for people. Pavel Vozenilek 16:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunn Consistency Model[edit]

Delete: Unverifiable. Appears to be a hoax. Deprodded by an IP. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nonsense. Maybe bordering on a G1 speedy candidate. --N Shar 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense (I just tagged it). The words are all real, but none of them add up to anything even remotely meaningful. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag removed by admin as "doesn't meet any csd criteria". Go figure. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Xe is correct. It doesn't. The article is comprehensible, and therefore it is not patent nonsense. Patent nonsense explicity does not include hoax articles, and hoax articles are not speedily deletable because it takes more than one pair of eyes to reliably identify hoaxes. That is what this article is: a hoax. Uncle G 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been unable to confirm the existence of any such thing. That, and the article's self-contradiction, lead me to conclude that this is a hoax. Delete. Uncle G 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax QuiteUnusual 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, per Uncle G.-- danntm ^T _C 02:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 02:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 14:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KSRC[edit]

• NN-club/online forum delete DesertSky85451 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --SonicChao 04:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zyudp 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 20:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of currently running Broadway shows[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. More importantly, the list appears to be only intermittently updated [15], which means there's a good possibility the information is often incomplete and/or incorrect. There are an untold number of web sites devoted to theater and New York City tourism that handle this sort of thing far better; it's best that we leave it to them. Aaron 04:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This isn't the sort of thing that an encyclopedia is good for. --Metropolitan90 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete. Let's leave this to the New Yorkers "On the Town" section, okay? They, at least, update weekly. --Calton | Talk 05:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT a directory, indiscriminate collection of information. They can always check guide books, websites etc. for such stuff. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a playbill, and this list provides not added value (cf. WP:LIST).-- danntm ^T _C 15:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-historical lists that require constant maintenance are inappropriate. -Amatulic 23:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Kisby[edit]

I think this should be deleted, but I am posting this here on AFD as a last attempt to see if anyone can find references or sources that verify that this person existed and was the "Canadian Ice Ballet Champion in Kolsas, Norway 1990." I have not been able to find references online. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Most emphatically not verified. Delete. --N Shar 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and possible speedy. A google search turns up bubkis. 2 hits. I mean, its so bad, this article might well be a hoax. --Jayron32 05:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When I first started editing Wikipedia, I deleted most of this entry as slanderous and unverified. I think the rest of the article could go now; I think I left that sentence because it wasn't slander, not because I could verify it. --Brianyoumans 06:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possible hoax, zero google hits outside of wikipeida and its mirrors. Storm05 17:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat 02:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les Eason[edit]

Prod was removed without explanation. A minor indy artist with one independently released album. No major hits, no major media coverage, no reliable third party sources leading me to believe that the article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and is largely unverifiable. His claim to fame is his supposedly high PureVolume rating, which is a dubious mark of notability at best. A Google search of his name brings up a forum about him with roughly 10 posts, and a pure volume page. Nothing at Allmusic.com. Wafulz 05:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Counterargument

1) In defense of the artist, the WP:MUSIC rule states: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country." PureVolume qualifies under this rule, period. If this is not the desired definition of the rule, the rule should be rewritten or elaborated upon. Furthermore, being that I edited the article with the PureVolume statistics, the statement "His claim to fame" is a subjective and therefore an irrelevant remark. The word "dubious" (above) also suggests subjectivity and should therefore not be considered valuable to the evaluation the argument. If so desired, and if this case were being conducted properly and fairly, the protestor should verify PureVolume statistics by contacting PureVolume, especially before making accusations.

2) It is not a standard practice for Independent artists such as Mr. Eason to submit publications to organizations such as AMG, therefore, AMG (Allmusic.com) is not a reliable tool for scrutinizing credibility. In addition, there is no rule under WP:MUSIC that credits AMG with being the means by which to validate an artist. If this is so desired, a rule should be put in place.

3) The above argument about the google search is misleading. As we all know, google results vary daily depending on hits. The fact that the search "Les Eason" brings back 10 pages (635) of results, and the fact that profile views on the artist's MySpace and PureVolume on October 17 are exceedingly high, it can be assumed that while his forum doesn't necessarily reflect high traffic, it is still a fairly popular page, at least on October 17. It is fairly common for music fans to prefer the artists MySpace over their homepage. Since the artists MySpace was recently updated, it has been cycled to last of the results when searching from google while it would normally be the top search result (as I have personally seen). Such is the case when any MySpace profile is edited. The artist's MySpace suggests a large fan base and boasts a number of posts, contradicting the above beliefs which are simply a result of premature evaluation based on the lack of participation, not traffic, on the Les Eason Forum page. An unfair and incomplete interpretaion. And again, forum activity is not one of the required criteria under WP:MUSIC.

Conclusion:

I understand that Wikipedia does not tolerate promotional or marketing pages, but just the fact that I got on here today and searched "Les Eason" is evidence enough that people are interested in the article. At first I was surprised to see that he had a Wikipedia page, but then I was even more surprised to see the discrepancy since this artist is so well known as an independent musician in Texas. It would be a shame to delete the article and definitely not based on substantial reasoning (contradictory to the given criteria even). If you left the page alone, you would undoubtedly find that numerous people search this artist. I also feel that further arguments should be strictly objective and supported by Wikipedia criteria, not personal opinion.

Lindseypooh 10 01:20, 18 October 2006

— Possible single purpose account: Lindseypooh 10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

— Note to closing admin: Lindseypooh 10 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.

• Delete per nom. Linseypooh, PureVolume is a music community site, not a meter of radio plays. The WP:MUSIC criterion for a "national music chart" means radio plays and music sales, not votes on web sites. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN. Note that subject appears to have created page with users lindseypooh and 68.105.226.17 contributing. BTW/ I spent 3 weeks in Texas during Aug 2006 on the local pub and club scene and had not heard of him. Encise 06:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]

• Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC at this time, but with luck, who knows. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I don't care what his purevolume rating is, this guy is still non-notable. And unverifiable. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions

11:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• " the WP:MUSIC rule states: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country." PureVolume qualifies under this rule, period." - Oh does it? you might as well use MySpace profile views as an arbiter of notability. Please, Delete --User:amists
• Delete per nom, Dhartung and Ultra-Loser. --Aaron 16:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Les Eason Hey lindsaypooh10, I appreciate your support and yes, I do you remember you from the Amarillo show. Anyway, I was just board during one of my grad classes yesterday afternoon and thought I would make a wiki page. I read the rules for deletion and knew beforehand that it would be deleted. I was surprised to log on this morning though and see all the debate about it. Just delete the page. It's not a big deal and I agree that PureVolume shouldn't qualify. And if these guys have nothing better to do than to troll inferior pages like mine than and make rediculous comments (with the exception of Dhartung and Aaron) then that is pathetic and it says alot about the wiki community. I had never edited on here because I've never had time, but I did expect to find a more scholarly bunch than this. I do appreciate in some sense the attention the page has received and I would urge all of you to check out my MySpace for some samples. By the way, the Purevolume Stats she posted were wrong anyway. Happy trolling! LES Sometime during the day, 18 October 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.116.189 (talk • contribs)
  • So you created a page knowing it would be deleted, and proceed to tell us that discussing its deletion is stupid and trolling? And now you want us to visit your page? What? --Wafulz 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very highly doubt that calling dedicated wikipedians "trolls" and their comments "rediculous [sic]" is going to encourage anyone to get onto your myspace page and listen to your samples. You said yourself that you knew this page is going to be deleted, you don't have to make such a big fuss about it. Since you've apparently acquainted yourself with the deletion guidelines, might I reccommend that you acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Etiquette as well? Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteNon-notable vanity affair of dubious musical origins and going no were, who cares. The Crying Orc 18:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable for reasons given above, and Mr. Eason is kind of a snot too, per his comment. NawlinWiki 02:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creature World[edit]

Website/Article is not notable. Fails to meet requirements of notability for WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. Article is also non-encyclopedic. MidgleyDJ 05:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Almost a speedy, if it weren't for "10000 members" which is a weak assertion of notability. MER-C 11:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitorikko[edit]

Non-notable toy MidgleyDJ 05:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 11:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. Neier 13:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not seem notable.UberCryxic 21:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiropets[edit]

Non-notable website. At the very least notability is not asserted. Article is non-encyclopedic. MidgleyDJ 05:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another Neopets knockoff without any specific claim to notability. Its abysmal Alexa rank of nearly 900,000 suggests that it isn't all that popular. Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If Marapets deserved deletion, this certainly does; it is in no way as comprehensive and is a much smaller website in terms of capacity and also members. Torika
• Delete NN Anomo 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7--Konst.able^Talk 11:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trustee Stepan Vdovine[edit]

Reason for nomination. fails Wp:Bio, speedy was removed. An activist with a local schoolboard harldly meets criteria for inclusion. Lord of Illusions 06:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I disagree —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.32.254 (talk • contribs) .

Delete, no notability established. It's unusual for a 20-year-old to hold an elected office, but hardly significant. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-listed for Speedy Delete per wp:bio. The original speedy template was removed without explanation by the author of the article. Editor warned. yandman 09:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conjoin[edit]

unnecessary dicdef for non-standard term CapnPrep 06:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki - dictdef. It should be noted that conjoin is a real word. MER-C 11:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. It contains more information than wikt:conjoin. --ais523 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki or Delete Patrick Hurston 13:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callan Park Lunatic Asylum for the Mentally and Criminally Insane[edit]

Information relating to this facility is contained in the article Callan Park, New South Wales. The Kirkbride Complex closed in 1994. amitch 06:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It appears to be out of date and unneccesary as the nom indicates. --Bduke 08:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 08:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect -- to Callan Park, New South Wales, a. - Longhair\^talk 08:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. The article Callan Park, New South Wales relates only to the Callan Park precinct, whereas this article contains information on the asylum itself. The asylum is the most significant feature of the area, and its importance should not be marginalised. The article must remain. Socratis57 of Balmain.
• Nom withdrawn Something happened to this discussion. It once was much longer. Not sure what. I was the original nominator; I tripped over it while doing some catagorization work. The article has been substancially fixed, and I now think it should be kept. It DOES need some references to make it better, but it seems to assert its own notability now. I have no idea what happened to the original debate. --Jayron32 21:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article still asserts that it is a mental hospital and that its future is unsure, yet Callan Park, New South Wales asserts it closed in 1994. Are you sure this is not a copyvio from some old source. I still think it should be deleted, or rather redirected to Callan Park, New South Wales. --Bduke 23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I doubt a currently operating psychiatric hospital would still be called an "Asylum for the Criminally and Mentally Insane", so I think a title change to the facility's most recent name is in order (Callan Park Mental Hospital, I believe). Yes, the article seems to imply that it's still operating, and according to NSW State Records, Callan Park ceased operating in 1976 when it merged with Rozelle Hospital. Friends of Callan Park says that there were still patients in the facility until 1994 when they were moved to other buildings and it was taken over by Sydney College for the Arts. --Canley 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - to Callan Park as per other views. There's no need for two articles on the same thing.Weak keep - the information covered has now changed so there's less overlap, but I'm still sceptical over whether we need two separate articles. This article could well be merged to provide a good article of FA status in the future about the suburb itself and its history, both as a mental hospital and about the redevelopment plans. JROBBO 04:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have thoroughly updated and modernised the article. Again, I draw your attention to the obvious fact that this article deals with the Asylum itself in great detail, whereas the other article merely contains general information on the site that is Callan Park. The Asylum is an important part of the history of the state of New South Wales and of the treatment and care of the insane, and therefore this article is important. I suggest that the other article Callan Park, New South Wales be deleted or linked to this article and re-named Callan Park Grounds, New South Wales. I hope that the gangs of ne'er-do-wells that lurk the pages of this online information source will accept this. User:socratis57 19 October 2006.

The proposal for renaming the other article would be inconsistent with suburb naming conventions on WP. I have to disagree with that. JROBBO 04:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree the subject is historically notable enough for an article, and I've dug up some references which I will add shortly. User:socratis57, thanks for your work on the article, but please don't insult other users as "gangs of ne'er do wells" - it's not civil and doesn't help your case. Actually, can someone close this AfD and tag it for cleanup? Jayron32 has withdrawn the nomination (see above). --Canley 04:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Don't know what happened to the original nom, but I re-nominated it this time round. Even though some additional information has been added to the article, there are parts of the History: Bedlam in Balmain section which are basically copyvios from here or here and will need to be removed or quickly rewritten. The other additions are un-referenced. amitch 08:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Indeed, I could have been mistaken on that point. Still, the discussion appears truncated. I was watching this specific Afd. I have hundreds of things on my watch list, and I only watch AfDs I am involved in. I must have mad prior comments to this AfD if I was watching it. My comments are no longer here. I cannot find them in the history. I remember distinctly catagorizing this article, and thought I had nominated. Wait, I PRODed it, not AFD. Now I understand. OK. I guess I wasn't the original source of the AfD. Still, my PROD means I must have at one time thought it was deleteable. I no longer think so. The building described seems notable on face value. The article still needs clean-up but no longer seems to lack notability. --Jayron32 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep see above for explanation --Jayron32 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have moved the Keep and associated comments from User:socratis57 which were wrongly appearing at the top of this page to its correct chronological place in line and changed their second entry to Comment so as to ensure only one vote. amitch 08:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Historically very notable, could make for a really interesting article. Rebecca 02:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rebecca and others. Natgoo 09:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rebecca et al. Cnwb 01:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, historically notable, per Rebecca and others. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deletionate. DS 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personating[edit]

Colbert neologism. This is nothing like the scale of truthiness; Wikipedia is not an almanac of television comedy gags. —ptk✰fgs 06:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Isn't there a new WØRD (practically) every night? How many articles will this run to? --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Forever. I nominated a piece of Colbertcruft not too long ago. The response was ... unpleasant. --Aaron 16:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 07:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The entire contents of this article are original research, a novel meaning, invented 2 days ago by one person, for an existing word. Wikipedia is not for things made up by Colbert one day.. The joke is on Colbert and the Wikipedia editors who blindly add xyr jokes to Wikipedia, however, because "personate" (at least one of its several senses) and "impersonate" are synonyms, not antonyms. There's nothing worth saving here. Redirect to personation per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs). Uncle G 11:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of neologisms on The Colbert Report (which needs improvement). Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 11:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly object to a verb that has been around since 1590 redirecting to an article on one person's neologisms, when there's already a perfectly good article on the action that the verb actually denotes. Uncle G 11:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Personate was already a word before Colbert decided to change its meaning for his own use. (I have nothing against Colbert, but I thought he was more literate than that. IIRC, Shakespeare uses 'personate'.) --Charlene.fic 14:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Uncle G. --Aaron 16:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per author. Content has been relocated to List of neologisms on The Colbert Report. 12:40, 18 October 2006 (PST).

Note to posters from the author: Thank you for regulating

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

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

The result was speedy keep, bad faith nomination. --Coredesat 07:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha[edit]

Reasoning:

• WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a web directory.
• WP:WEB - Site is not notable.

Also, Wikipedia is not to be used as an advertising service, which this is clearly what this is being used for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plkrtn (talk • contribs) .

• Speedy Keep close under WP:SNOW, former featured article. Notability is well established. —ptk✰fgs 07:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW — A former featured article, you'll likely find that this article is AfD'd because the "Lostpedians" can not have there own article (just read Talk:Lostpedia and look at his edit history.) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, though this was a close call. Nominating an article hoping that it gets kept to set a precedent contradicts general expectations that those who nominate articles for deletion want them deleted. This comes close to WP:POINT and may qualify under Wikipedia:Speedy keep as such and may also fit the description of a situation in which "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves. These are also to be kept." This seems to be a nomination for the sake of process, and the nominator has stated he wishes for an outcome besides deletion (in this case, a keep). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wookieepedia[edit]

per WP:WEB, SPAM Jabrwocky7 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not treat this as a personal attack on Wookieepedia. Lostpedia, a wiki for the ABC series Lost, has had its page deleted based on this policy. I hope that Wookiepedia survives this review and a precedent is set for other articles on Wikipedia. A quick look at the stats of both sites shows that Lostpedia, with an Alexa rating of 11,175, has over 19 million page views. Wookieepedia reports 8.9 million page views. The Alexa rating for this site includes all of Wikia, so those stats don't compare. The Wookieepedia article does not list any notable external references to the site, whereas Lostpedia was listed in businessweek.com and was a Scifi.com site of the week. --Jabrwocky7 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Uh...don't think so. It's been around a while, and I don't consider it spam. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Wookieepedia is a very large database of Star Wars articles frequented by a great deal of people. It has a very impressive alexa rating of 3,230. — NMChico24 23:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alexa rating of 3,230 is for all of wikia.com. --Jabrwocky7 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Not spam, and one of Wikia's biggest wikis. BryanG^(talk) 23:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The only delete was an attack on the subject's eligability as a physicist, and this is not the purpose of AfD. Daniel.Bryant 06:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Dröscher[edit]

WP:PROD was contested. Insufficent notability for a physicist. Next to no publications. --Pjacobi 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this may be considered in context of recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heim_theory. Pavel Vozenilek 20:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep based primarily on results from Google Scholar. Eluchil404 05:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the presence of publications for a professor is not notable, but he appears to satisfy WP:BIO. Vectro 23:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, — CharlotteWebb 07:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Delete This article is from what I understand about a crank pseudo scientist and crackpot, not a physicist, who does not deserve a Wikipedia article. I read the Heim theory discussion and from what I understand Heim Theory is wrong. Wikipedia does not need articles on every wanna be scientist pseudo intellectual bent on finding bocus reasons to explain the universe. Stick to something solid like Metal. --The Crying Orc 18:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep appears to satisfy WP:BIO --Limetom 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. Crackpots can be notable too, and belong in the pseudoscience collection of articles. If not kept, the content of this article should at least be merged into List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. -Amatulic 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, the man won an award from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics [16] for his peer reviewed research paper and his work is being studied by ESA, so he's no crackpot, not can you honestly call it "pseudoscience"... if we can have articles about import models and such, this is a strong keep. His work was featured in prominent magazines like New Scientist [17]. GeneralPatton 14:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is a tendency to mix notability and judgement on scientific value. This is not peer review. I think he is notable. Hektor 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 14:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberian Knights[edit]

Not notable musical duo. Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. 144 unique Ghits for "Cyberian Knights", of which many from wikipedia or similar and a fair share of directory and myspace listings. Ohconfucius 07:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, non-notable. yandman 09:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, useless, meaningless. --The Crying Orc 18:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost further reading[edit]

Article was created purposely to be a spam db (see bottom of Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites, any internal links just duplicate Lost (TV series). Wikipedia is not a link database. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The talk page referenced above was an attempt to find a compromise between two very polarized factions. Extrapolating from that good-faith effort (which included two alternatives intended to span the range between the opposing editors) to assuming that the current article's motivation is vanity or "spam db" is a misrepresentation. --Santaduck 09:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Read: WP:SPAM#If you canvass, this as well, specificly: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.", "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.", "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.", "Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)" and also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Hopefully "Do not spam." has sunk in now. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Your last sentence is mildly derogatory, and is not necessary. In response, I will reiterate that you are proving my point that you are focusing only on the external link / spam issue, which is obviously an issue near and dear to you, but only peripheral to the current article, to which you've nonetheless recommended a complete deletion rather than suggestions for changing its content. It also seems you've brought along other like-minded editors (I might be wrong, but you posted the afd twelve hours after article creation, then the next two delete votes by familiar editors follwed, the first (pjacobi) within 3 minutes, and the next (ptkfgs) within 21 minutes) from the previous debates. Also continued to be ignored by the current discussion are the contents of the article's talk page which were available before you made the afd. --Santaduck 11:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I'd prefer speedily. --Pjacobi 08:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This all seems to have started with a dispute over whether to add an external link to Lostpedia from the article about the TV series. What a lot of collateral damage it's caused! Concur with nomination. —ptk✰fgs 08:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Despite the comments of the above, this article is trying to avoid that counterproductive almost-flamewar to which the above two editors are frequent contributors. As a case in point, see their delimitation of the discussion to the presence of external links, which is not the primary motivation for this article. In contrast, justification for the current article was in article talk (and ignored in the above comments), as both Portal:Star Trek and Star Trek further reading exist (i.e. analogous articles for a fictional universe with an extended storyline and fanbase across various media), along the same parameters as this article. Any justification for deletion should take these articles, as well as others in to account. Thank you. As a further note, there is the WP-wide issue of statute vs. precedence, and the above editors seem biased toward statute.--Santaduck 09:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the concern is duplicate links, these could be offloaded from an borderline-long parent article. Note that many of the categories are not redundant between the two articles. Further the Lost Experience links are not duplicated in the main article. Also the presence of the navigation is analogous with the use of one in the Star Trek main article. I am trying to follow precedence of similar extant articles, and any constructive suggestions along those lines would be welcomed, and immediately implemented. --Santaduck 09:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the existing pool of already-opinionated editors from both sides, I'd informally like to solicit commentary from long-time WP editors who frequent AFD pages, but are not previously invested in issues closely related to this article (Lost). Or, if someone could take the initiative as the vote goes on to identify which voting editors have already been involved in the issues related to Lost articles, and those who have not.--Santaduck 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek further reading isn't really a useful comparison here. Star Trek has been around for 40 years, there are five separate series, a slew of movies, hundreds of novels, etc. People have written doctoral dissertations on Star Trek. There are college courses on it, for crying out loud, and reams and reams of written material. I'm not sure we need a "further reading" article on it, and in fact I'd say we have about 20 times as much Star Trek crud here as we need, but it's clearly in a class by itself.

I haven't edited anything on Wikipedia related to Lost until this crap started spilling over into other articles. I've never seen it. I'm sure it's a great series. We don't need this article. —ptk✰fgs 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Good God, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a link depository. -- Steel 12:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a cruft fork. The signficant ones are sources for Lost, the balance should not be here. Guy 14:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT a link directory. This is a complete spam magnet. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. This article is simply the latest foray in the months-long, ever-recurring battle by Lostpedians (who otherwise don't contribute to WP much at all) to get a link on WP to their site. See the long and contentious fansites discussion pointed to by the nominator. -- PKtm 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Untrue: your fallacy is that a link to Lostpedia is the primary motivation to this article; further there are no WP editors in this vote thread (thus far) who "other don't contribute to WP much at all". Santaduck 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT QuiteUnusual 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but add a link to The Lostpedia (www.lostpedia.com) There should be a suitable link to the Lostpedia someplace in the Lost articles. The site is good, with lots of content, and such a link could drive fancruft off the Wikipedia to a place where it is needed. -Dr Haggis - Talk 17:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per guideline WP:WEB, which notes, "There is also consensus amongst many Wikipedia editors that Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links."--Leflyman^Talk 18:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE! DELETE! DELETE!!!, per above. SergeantBolt (t,c) 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Wikipedical 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-I think this falls under WP:POINT. --Kahlfin 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn't even pretending to be an article, one of the defining elements of which is that it has... well... content. It's just a bunch of links. GassyGuy 21:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Yamla 04:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fan sites re: afd[edit]

• Note: external links for fan sites have now been removed, as suggested above. Rationale for AFD, as listed by the above editors voting for "Delete" has now been addressed. Article structure is now analogous to the precedence of Star Trek further reading, with the exception of the removal of these links. Santaduck 19:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exception: note that Web 2.0 external links have been retained to illustrate the strength of this phenomenon. IMHO they illustrate an aspect of Lost fandom without being spam. However if these links too are distasteful, they may be easily removed (without resorting to deletion of the entire article based on external links which no longer exist in the article.) Santaduck 20:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rationale for AFD, as listed by the above editors voting for "Delete" has now been addressed.
      No it hasn't. -- Steel 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Web 2.0? It's a link farm. Please refer to WP:EL. —ptk✰fgs 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Section removed as per your suggestion. At this point the primary rationale noted in the afd has been addressed. --Santaduck 22:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still a link db, ext/int or not, we have categories for this thing. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please stop saying that the rationale for the AfD has been addressed. Regardless of the nominator's comments, nothing short of deleting the entire article will address my concern. I'm sure this applies to others who've participated in this discussion too. -- Steel 22:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, this is now an entirely pointless and redundant List. How is it any different than the actual LostNav template used on every actual Lost article, and the External Links at Lost Experience? -- Leflyman^Talk 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Attempting to remedy your concern; see section stub. However I am assuming the bad faith among the editors above will result in no substantive contributions from editors other than myself, as no constructive suggestions have been provided thus far. --Santaduck 18:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equating disagreement with bad faith is both misguided and offensive. Please review WP:AGF. -- PKtm 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always begin assuming good faith. This assumption can change based on evidence, for example through comments I have seen of some editors in articles talks, such as yourself: 1) focusing on external links almost exclusively in this afd with "strong delete" with no reference to the article as a whole until this strange emphasis was explicitly questioned; 2) other misinformation as well as comments that have been construed by other editors as a vendetta in other talks such as the Lostpedia afd (see also the deletion review/DRV linked at the top of that page), are the reasons I have overturned my opening assumption of good faith. In other words, your own past comments subjectively suggest to me that the issue of Lostpedia has strongly affected the severity of your comments on this article. Also, based on your past comments, I further suggest that your posting of the obvious ( WP:AGF ) was possibly intended as derogatory toward me as well. --Santaduck 01:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update Oct 23

• Still working on article to address concerns raised in the AFD. The most significant addition is the addition of a reading list with commentary on the significance of each piece. Working on getting sources for all of the claims.

The intent is that the content is substantially updated from the version that existed at the creation of the AFD (which signifcantly was opened by an editor who has been described by others as having a "vendetta" against one particular external link (Lostpedia.com) which was only a peripheral part of this article, and which in any case, no longer exists in this article. (See DRV here and AFD here). --Santaduck 01:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask that you please drop the talk of "vendetta", which borders on a personal attack. Again, equating disagreement with "vendetta" is misguided and dismissive of everyone's right to a respectful dialog here. You take the interesting logical leap of saying that because I've commented in the past about how I feel that a link to Lostpedia (a site I happen to enjoy quite a bit) is wrong for Wikipedia, I'm somehow part of a vendetta, and that my comments must be derogatory and/or in bad faith. Disagreement does not equate to derogatory either. So please dial it back. Thanks, PKtm 04:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraconductor[edit]

One company's theory. No verifiable reliable sources (no publications in scientific/engineering journals). Please delete. --Pjacobi 08:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds, if not thousands, of samples of Ultraconductors have been produced since 1981 when a piece of polymer was found to conduct electricity when it should have been an insulator. This work was discovered in the former Soviet Union by Dr. L. Grigorov and could one day be the subject of a Nobel Prize. Three floors of laboratories and a staff of Ph.D. basic research scientists performed the early work at the Institute of Polymer Materials, of what is now the Russian Academy of Science. In 1991 a paper entitled: On Genuine Room Temperature Superconductivity in Oxidized Polypropylene was published in Russian. The title appeared in HiTC Update, a publication supported by the U.S. Government. It stated the paper was only available in Russian. Magnetic Power Inc. had it privately translated six months prior to a published translation by the American Institute of Physics. The experimental work was impressive enough that our team visited the Moscow laboratories in late 1992 and evaluated the excellent science. We also arranged for applications to be developed by our subsidiary, Room Temperature Superconductors Inc., that was incorporated in 1993. This private firm has completed four Small Business Innovation Research Contracts for the USAF and what is now called the Missile Defense Agency. The Air Force did its own tests before awarding a Phase II Contract. It then had the work independently reproduced by Fractal Technologies. Dr. Matt Aldissi, the CEO of that firm, was the monitor of the Russian work for the USA while a staff scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. He also convenes the annual International Conference for Conducting Polymers. Papers have been published in refereed publications including the Journal of Superconductivity, reflecting extensive laboratory experimnents. These materials offer an alternative to copper and the next goal is developing them into wire, which will take three years of laboratory work that may begin in the near future. In my opinion deletion will be a sad reflection on the inability of Wikipedia to intelligently deal with new and controversial science.

Mark Goldes, CEO, Magnetic Power Inc. and Room Temperature Superconductors Inc.

• delete. Non-notable crackpot spam. yandman 09:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax/scam. useless. non-notable. —ptk✰fgs 09:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as with many pseudoscientific hoaxes, if this were real there would be countless reliable sources available. Of course, there aren't any reliable sources listed in this article, so out it goes. Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete change to Delete---not just "one company's theory". It's one of several theories from a well-known crackpot entrepreneur. On the other hand, the parent company is well-known in pseudoscience circles, and the Ultraconductors company has actually gotten DOD grants---much to the embarrassment of the DOD, according to the linked Wired article. Content-wise/science-wise, yes, it's non-notable crackpottery. However, the existence of this company might be noteworthy---I can imagine a would-be investor hearing about Ultraconductors, buying the CEO's spiel, and Googling around for more info. For such a user, the connection between RTS and Magnetic Power, Inc. is noteworthy, as is a link to the Wired article and a few comments from mainstream scientists. (NB: a Google search for "ultraconductor" brings up nothing but free-energy websites and Wikipedia.) On the other hand, a) Wikipedia is not, at the moment, a database of all possible scams, and perhaps it shouldn't be b) with the CEO editing actively, NPOV would require constant attention; scientific-point-of-view even more. On the other hand, that view of noteworthiness is inherently a NNPOV one---I sort of want the article kept in order to insert a few scientific sentences there documenting that Ultraconductors are bunk. The CEO will presumably have another NNPOV idea of noteworthiness---he wants to make his company's thing look good by having it listed under "Physics" on Wikipedia. Combine those two dueling edits into an NPOV article, and you're left with something non-noteworthy, hence delete. Ugh. Bm gub 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is functionally an advertisement for a scam (despite efforts to add statements debunking the scam). George J. Bendo 14:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - There has been at least one peer reviewed paper on this and if valid it would have enormous implications for physics. Keep at least until 2007, when products are supposed to become commercially available.--hughey 16:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Products in 2007? WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. The free-energy branch of the company has been promising "products next year" since time immemorial; if someday they release something and it works, someone will create an article about it then, and no-one will fault Wikipedia for not previewing it. Anyway, convincing people that "enormous implications" are just around the corner is how the scam works---that's the hook, just like the huge Nigerian trust fund which will be wired over after just one more fee. As for science, there's one peer-reviewed *theory* paper from 2003 entitled "Possible high-current superconductivity ... " and one from 1994 entitled "Speculative model for ...". These papers do not pass any sort of notability requirement on their own: certainly WP can't devote an article to every untested solid-state-physics theory. There are (quite literally) thousands of them. An article on any similar paper would be so deeply un-notable as to barely attract an AFD nomination. Ultraconductors combines science non-notability with WP:ADV and WP:OR. Bm gub 17:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think this fits perfectly in the original purposes of WP:OR and WP:ADV.-- danntm ^T _C 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WilliamKF 20:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research + likely hoax. --Polaron | Talk 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff_Metal[edit]

photographer with no claims to notability, most of article talks about his DJ'ing, which kind of implies that he's not all that as a photographer - delete Marcus22 09:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, non-notable vanity. yandman 09:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a steady flow of bone-crushing vanispamcruftisement. —ptk✰fgs 10:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Vanity, me DJ, me no wikipedia article, me delete heheheheh. --The Crying Orc 18:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Esteban F. ^(con.) 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What absoloute nonsense. Homeboy is not wiki... he's wikity wikity wikity wack! Encise 00:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]
• Comment Article creator vandalized this AfD and changed all the arguments to keeps. I've reverted it. --Coredesat 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and protect from re-creation. Robertissimo 06:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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