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

The result was Speedy delete as non-notable (in light of biography cited by Mitaphane). --Nlu (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin S. DuClos[edit]

After looking this entry over a few times, I am undecided as to whether this attorney is sufficiently notable. I felt that it should be submitted to a discussion. Neutral at the moment. --Nlu (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not WP:BIO. See his bio at his law firm's website. He's been practicing for less than a year. Maybe someday he'll be notable, but it's probably too soon for an entry. .—Mitaphane _talk 07:26, 8 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 - no reason given for nomination. Thryduulf 15:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords Reform[edit]

Restarting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords Reform due to the last AFD being for multiple articles such that a clear consensus could not be determined for the two remaining articles that appear to have been mostly rewritten. Cowman109^Talk 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep There appears to be no reason given to delete this article. Catchpole 10:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original reason was given at the original AfD, but I agree, this new AfD needs its own reason for deletion to be given, otherwise it becomes void. Carcharoth 11:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - needs lots of tidying up and improvement, but that is no reason to delete. Carcharoth 11:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - inexplicable nomination. Eusebeus 11:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the editors involved should perhaps look at these two articles and the main House of Lords article and try to split up the material better, and retitle the articles. I think the titles of the articles are poor and the articles probably duplicate each other. --Brianyoumans 12:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has the beginnings of a really good article. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep The references and other areas do need tidying up, but so far it looks like a pretty good article. --Alex (Talk) 13:32, 8 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. Thryduulf 15:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords Reform - History[edit]

Restarting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords Reform due to confusion from major changes made to the article, splitting into two AFDs. Cowman109^Talk 01:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep There appears to be no reason given to delete this article. Catchpole 10:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original reason was given at the original AfD, but I agree, this new AfD needs its own reason for deletion to be given, otherwise it becomes void. Carcharoth 11:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep inexplicable nomination. Eusebeus 11:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs lots of tidying up and improvement, but that is no reason to delete. Carcharoth 11:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Only one comment is that perhaps it should be renamed as "History of Lords Reform" or "Lords Reform (History)" --Alex (Talk) 13:34, 8 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 - Yomangani^talk 18:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrugem[edit]

Non notable Brazilian ex-VJ. Fails WP:BIO. Húsönd 01:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-08 02:18Z
• Keep. He is a well known VJ in Brazil, which makes him notable. --Carioca 03:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seems as though the survival of this one will depend on providing sources. I couldn't find more than passing mentions of him online, but maybe someone else knows what to look for and can improve the article during this AfD. Grandmasterka 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Brazilian Wikipedia. Carcharoth 11:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on earth should they want an English article...? Punkmorten 14:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know what I mean! :-) If he is only notable in Brazil, get someone at the Brazilian Wikipedia to write an article on him. I'm sure they are deleting articles people write on Phillip Schofield (to pick a random example). Carcharoth 17:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not an English-centric Wikipedia. It is an international encyclopedia in English. If he meets WP:BIO in Brazil, he meets it here. Grandmasterka 17:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point. I wonder whether that works in practice though. I am sure the individual language Wikipedias have articles that would be deleted if translated and copied across. I guess what I am saying is that the article is more likely to be accepted and expanded at the Brazilian wiki. Having said that, I can only find a Portuguese-language wiki, as that is the official language of Brazil. Carcharoth 20:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Do you actually have a concrete example of an English-language article that would meet notability requirements being deleted in a foreign Wikipedia? If not, then you're just speculating. ColourBurst 22:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am just speculating, but your challenge prompted me to investigate a little bit. I thought of looking at the current articles nominated for deletion and seeing if any have interwiki links. Not many do, most being obscure and/or recently created. But James W. Walter (looking likely to be deleted) is also on the French Wikipedia here. So is the interwiki co-ordination good enough that we will notify the French if we delete the article, and do we expect the same sort of notification when they delete stuff. I would say not in both cases. So I suggest that it is quite likely that deletion policies are not uniform across the wikipedias, which is as it should be, as they are written for different audiences (different languages), and are independent anyway (though all are hosted by the Foundation). Carcharoth 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason I ask is there have been a few AfD nominations that have been bandied about saying that we should delete an article on the English Wikipedia because it isn't popular enough in English countries (without checking at least if it's notable in its own country/language). This seems extremely biased to me. Walter is from the United States (and a large portion of his time is still spent there) and therefore it's easy to prove if he's notable in English. From what I read in the article, the Walter article was transwikied from an earlier version of the current article as well, so it might not be that relevant if somebody does decide to delete it. I'm not saying that notability is having an entry in a foreign language Wikipedia, but I am saying that the interwiki could be used to find notability links, something that doesn't always happen when an article with an interwiki is nominated, and people cite the nonexistent "a person must be notable in English or in English-speaking countries" criteria (which is actually contrary to WP:V). ColourBurst 21:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Notability not asserted. Igbogirl 18:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Valrith 22:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, borderline ((db-bio)) for no claim to notability, zero sources provided for any such claim. Sandstein 07:37, 10 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. Deizio talk 11:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Eclectic Chauvinist[edit]

Delete. ^{[Check Google hits]} Only 7 Google hits, and Amazon Sales Rank of 1m+. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No indication of notability (vanity presses do not qualify). Hu 03:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carcharoth 11:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable possible spam  Funky Monkey  (talk)  21:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think is acceptable. Not a vanity press, more than 7 Google results.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.193.99 (talk • contribs)
• Keep i'm not apposed to keeping this page. User:Jackson Carver2 8:02, 9 October 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Jackson Carver2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Note: User's only edits are to this page. --Storkk 13:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable. --Storkk 13:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Book has received good reviews. Not notable but neither is a lot of other Wiki articles User:Samuel Higginson 8:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Samuel Higginson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Comment. Please let us know what those other articles are, and we'll put them up for deletion too. ... discospinster _talk 14:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I mean, it's a book, maybe not a well-known one but isnt wikipedia good because it has entries on almost everything. User:Rockrock — Possible single purpose account: Rockrock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep Even though it might not be notable, cover design indicates that it is not a vanity press. User:Samuel Higginson 5:17, 9 October 2006
  • A cover design indicates whether someone designed your cover. It cannot indicate anything about whether the book is from a vanity press. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's a link to Amazon on this article. Is that appropriate? Other than that, I think it should stay. --Jackson Carver2 22:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All three above keep opinions are from single purpose accounts. Pascal.Tesson 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Sam Higginson" wrote "keep" twice. Hu 23:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So did "Jackson Carver2". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:BK (proposed guideline, feel free to comment!). Pascal.Tesson 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability has been shown. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No independant review of book, very low ranking on Amazon, very low visibility, not notable. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 03:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no indication of meeting the proposed WP:BK. Sandstein 07:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is my belief that this article is appropriate. It is not fully finished yet. Nothing in it is controversial. As far as meeting the proposed WP:BK, the book does have an ISBN, is available among other places at Books-a-Million and Barnes and Noble, and is regarded as literary fiction. I do not know if the Library of Congress has it; is there a way to search the library online?--12.109.193.99 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I plugged the ISBN given into the LoC on-line search and it did not come up with anything. ... discospinster _talk 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a quote from the PublishAmerica website saying that they are not in any way a vanity press or self-publisher.link. Vanity press authors pay; PublishAmerica authors get paid. --12.109.193.99 18:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. You probably shouldn't use PublishAmerica's reputation as an argument to keep the article. ... discospinster _talk 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The 12.109.193.99 IP address user deleted referenced information from the PublishAmerica article (since reverted). I think that the continuing and extensive efforts made on Wikipedia by single-purpose editor(s) are evidence of the book's non-notability. If it was notable nobody would need to attempt to prop it up by such an extraordinary campaign. Hu 19:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deleted the referenced material because I saw the notice "do not copy text from other websites without permission". Instead I linked to their site. I am sorry if my "campaign" is such a big deal. I did not mean it to expand to such large proportions. --12.109.193.99 20:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to the quote here that you changed to a reference, I was referring to the whole paragraph on the PublishAmerica article that you deleted in an attempt to hide negative information about PublishAmerica without explanation or summary. All your underhanded tactics make everything you have written, including your book, suspect. Hu 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the edit which Hu is referring to. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response When I checked on the sales rank on Amazon it was 64,000. --12.109.193.99 20:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cleared the article of content and I think that it should be permanently deleted. Wasn't sure about what Hu said about the IP person's having wrote the book. ??? --Imity 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Imity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Note: Now we have the spectacle of 12.109.193.99 (talk) deleting attributions, and then showing up as this new "Imity", since it was 12.109.193.99 who blanked the book page. However, Imity pretends not to be the "IP person". Hu 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Just published, no evidence of notability. Isomorphic 23:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree that article should be deleted. Even if Imity is the "IP person", I think that Hu shouldn't have accused him of being the author. --UserSevenSeven 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC) -- — Possible single purpose account: UserSevenSeven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Note: It's all of a piece, a grand windup. Follow the trail and you can see who is who. 12.109.193.99 formerly voted "keep" (unattributed) then made some other comments here, then tries to delete the attributions on those comments (since reverted), then votes "delete". UserSevenSeven has made a solo edit, above. It amuses me to track this nonsense for a while, but I may get bored of it at any moment. Hu 00:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment get bored? --Hirokimoko Tachiri 00:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC) -- — Possible single purpose account: Hirokimoko Tachiri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Delete The "grand windup" has ceased. --Hu Is it 01:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Non-notable. The creators of non-notable articles should not be allowed to decide what is allowed on Wikipedia. THL 07:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Non-notable. The book ranks in the 400 thousandsth on Amazon.com and has no ranking on Amazon.uk Ohconfucius 02:52, 13 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. – Avi 00:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Tartupaluk[edit]

A student and his project, and basically un-important satire, in lack of a better word. You can’t call it a hoax. Someone claiming Hans Island as a new “nation”. Indorsing something like this on wiki is not only demeaning for an encyclopedia, it is to open the door for every two-cent fun property claim out there. Normally I would put something like this up for speed delete, but lets hear what others have to say. Twthmoses 02:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ultra NN "micronations" on WP, boring. Pavel Vozenilek 02:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This principality may not be as renowned as Sealand, but it's apparently real and notorious enough to have independent sources writing about it.--Húsönd 03:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither real nor notorious! and in no way comparable to Sealand. At best half a dozen obscure online news outlets spend a few words on this. They don’t do it because “Principality of Tartupaluk” is news, but because “Hans Island” is in dispute and apparently news worthy. This student who “invented” this 2 month ago, is only trying to cash in on the fuzz. The very best indicator that this is rubbish and not notable at all, is that it is only the “project manager” himself that is trying to get it on wiki! Just tab in Principality of Tartupaluk in goggle = what story? Twthmoses 17:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your point, but I am concerned about this. This principality is a recent nonsense alright, but it's a nonsense conforming to WP:V. This seems to be an example of an article that could be allowed to stay and be listed on Wikipedia:Unusual articles.--Húsönd 18:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonsense of no significance. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete micronation that's "existed" for two months? Silliness. Opabinia regalis 03:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete stupid. Danny Lilithborne 04:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Some random person looking for his 15 minutes of fame does not notability make. Resolute 06:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fake micronation, not recognised by any country. See Hans Island for the real story behind the island in question, which is somewhat interesting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. Redirect to Hans Island (Tartupaluk already redirects there). Also, merge verifiable information (see sources provided in article) from this article to Hans Island. Also, add to list at micronation. This is a verifiable (if silly) attempt to create a micronation, and as such it can be recorded at Hans Island and micronation. Does not warrant its own article. Carcharoth 11:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a classic case of an article that did not require a listing at AfD. I suggest the nominator reads WP:DEL#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed. A simple bit of merging and redirecting would have worked fine. I would do this myself, but it is inappropriate to do so while the deletion debate is in progress. However, if the article is deleted, how can the information be retrieved to put at Hans Island? I would urge the closing admin to consider this. Carcharoth 11:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because some clown looking for cheap publicity does not belong in a serious encyclopedia? There are a lot of individuals who do silly things like this to get into the papers, almost none of which are notable, all of whom are forgotten five minutes after the reader gets a little chuckle at their expense. Resolute 16:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are focussing on the notability of the person, which is the wrong thing to focus on. I agree that the person is non-notable. The notable thing here is the history of Hans Island. Like it or not, this attempt to declare a micronation is part of the history of Hans Island, hence it should be noted at that article. I am not suggesting an article about the person, though if you want examples of people who generated media interest and have their own article, see Amos Urban Shirk and Simon Pulsifer. Carcharoth 17:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Carcharoth. Unfortunately it is not this simple. In fact redirect should never be used in such cases. If redirected two things happens, I indorse Hans island = Principality of Tartupaluk, which I absolutely don’t. But much more important wiki, the worlds largest encyclopedia, is now propagating that Hans island = Principality of Tartupaluk. That simply is wrong. You come to wiki because you are notable, wiki does not make you notable. Twthmoses 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that redirects can be a problem if they imply the wrong thing. But I am not sure that this is consistently enforced. I can't think of a good example right now, but I am sure that similar cases in the past have been redirecte. Carcharoth 19:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User Twthmoses has repeatedly removed all mention of the Principality of Tartupaluk from the "Recent events" section of the Hans Island page and attacked people who have objected. Just check the article's history. He/she seems to be of the OPINION that the Principality of Tartupaluk is a "satirical" exercise, but he/she doesn't seem to have any evidence to back this up. Unless he/she has some special knowledge not available from the primary sources, his/her arguments appear to be pure conjecture. Why is he/she now also pushing for this page's deletion? Its content is verifiable, appears to be neutral, and has appeared in several reputable news sources--not "obscure online outlets" as he/she claims. What's the rush to suppress it?

Ahh, User:Tartupaluk yet again as a “new user” whose first action just happened to concern this issue. Hehe. Never mind. I have neither removed nor attack anybody, and there is an entire history log for anybody to see if they wish. On the issue however, “Principality of Tartupaluk” is an un-notable fun “project”, the likes that 10.000 students make in the parents basement each year. 9999 of them never sees year two. That simple does not belong in “Recent events” on a serious article on a serious encyclopedia. It should not be necessary to explain why this is so. You inserted it; I catapulted it to the satire section, cause there is no other place for it on the Hans Island article. This is btw not the place to discuss this; it goes on the Hans Island page. Twthmoses 02:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nonsuchplace. Carlossuarez46 16:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Hans Island. Silly or not, this is a verifiable part of the history of the place (and whether or not the guy's claim is silly and stupid is really not ours to decide, even though it is). No reason to have a whole article for it though. Seraphimblade 23:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Hans Island. This is definitely part of the island's history, silly or not, and for a place the size and remoteness of Hans Island, probably one of the more interesting things to have ever happened to it, or, for that matter, ever will happen to it. Jamin 00:24, 14 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. Deizio talk 11:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Jimbo[edit]

I doubt this is notable. Article seems to go out of its way to display notability through google and yahoo ranking, but this is probably just due to googlebombing. jaco♫plane 03:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Googlebombing? Please at least do me the favor of any type of search. The prominence on Yahoo, Google and other sources is due to the large volume of content I have produced and the amount of links from notable media sources including National Review, Time.com, CNN, Salon, AP and many others. I will endeavor to make the entry more encyclopedic and simply ask indulgence for a day or two, as this entry was posted today. I was honest about my use of Wikipedia and that can certainly be verified by examining my postings, and I hope the community will not succumb to Jaco's incorrect and unresearched allegation.

  Cordially,

  Uncle J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclejimbo (talk • contribs) 2006-10-08 04:00:40 — Unclejimbo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete, the article spends more time trying to prove he's notable than it does talking about what makes him deserve an article. Fails WP:BIO, and the above shows that this is total vanity. Redirect to Jimbo Kern. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There is some additional information added to the article that notes specific accomplishments in citizen journalism and blogging that ought to be taken into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclejimbo (talk • contribs) 2006-10-08 04:43:07
• Keep, and I hope the first vote doesn't count, because the guy who made it is obviously retarded. A quick Google search would show this isn't a "Googlebomb." As for it being vanity, how many news sources does a person have to be in before he's a pundit? I know some people here at Wiki are all like "Oh no! Bloggers! They're scary and will eat up all of Wikipedia's hard drive space leaving little room left to expand our article on Bumblebee from the Transformers!" Seriously, this is asinine. So, if someone sees Uncle Jimbo on CNN, don't come to Wikipedia for information on who that is. If you want Krang from the Ninja Turtles, we have you covered. Come on! The article needs some cleaning up, but do some research before making a decision. Frank J. Fleming 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: considering you have 5 mainspace edits, you may not be familiar with our policies regarding No Personal Attacks, and Civility. Please read these policies and abide by them. Calling somebody "obviously retard" is totally unacceptable. --Storkk 13:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For all of the attempt made in this vanity article, there is absolutely nothing that shows this individual is notable. It is bordering on failing criteria G11 for a speedy delete. Resolute 06:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Okay. As per FFleming's wishes I have done a quick in-context Google search ("uncle jimbo" "jim hanson"). 281 results. Not-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSeer (talk • contribs) 2006-10-08 10:33:13
  • What's an "in-context Google search"? I did a Google search for that phrase but didn't get a hit. I don't think looking for Google hits on "uncle jimbo" and "jim hanson" together proves anything, since he's often cited as just Uncle Jimbo or Uncle J. Milbloggers are often cited in the press, inlcuding Jim Hanson, so it would make information about him a lot more useful than a lot of crap Wikipedia has extensive articles on. Is there just some irrational fear of bloggers here that makes it harder for them to prove notability than any other type of person? Frank J. Fleming 18:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, WP:VAIN. Eusebeus 11:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then recreate as redirect to Jimbo Kern, protecting if necessary to avoid recreation. The delete is required to prevent the WP:VAIN stuff being accessible in the page history. Suggest that the blogger article be at Uncle Jimbo (blogger), or Jim Hanson, but will probably fail WP:BIO. Possibly add a brief note to Jimbo Kern to note that a blogger is using the name, and/or create a disambiguation page to list Jimbo Kern and Jim Hanson. Carcharoth 11:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A move to Uncle Jimbo (blogger) would probably be acceptable, although a disambiguation page would have to be created at the current location of the article (Uncle Jimbo), forking to Jim Kern/Jim Hanson. Ashanthalas 13:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I do realise that precise search engine rankings probably shouldn't go in a blogger article, the people who scream vanity likely do not know the reason they were posted. If you look at the page history, this is the third attempt to create this article. The previous two entries were simply reverted by a certain *user, not admin* without any sort of discussion. It is my understanding that these search results were posted as a simple way to confirm notability while the article is still fledgling and will be later removed. And look, it worked, at least we are having a discussion this time. Also, I have added this article to the proper category of American Bloggers. IMO a lot of articles in there could be deleted for lack of notability. But somehow noone argues that. Wikipedia has set a precedent and now we should follow up. I mean geez, there's a guy who has an article because he's a prominent figure in the community of podcasting. Please don't make me comment on this. Uncle Jimbo writes for - what I understand is - the top American military blog, Blackfive. He appears on radio interviews. On posters. He seems to be very widely recognised in the so-called blogosphere, especially it's military segment. And it's not like he started yesterday. Ashanthalas 12:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of Category:American bloggers is no more an indication that Wikipedia is a directory of every single 'blogger in existence, than the existence of Category:Living people is an indication that Wikipedia is a directory of every single living person in existence. Wikipedia is not a telephone book nor an Internet directory. Our criteria for biographical articles are Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. If you wish to make an argument for keeping that actually holds water, please demonstrate by citing sources that those criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 12:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment does hold water, as it adresses the issues raised previously (accusation of vanity and explanation of overall notability). Second: right now, Wikipedia is a telephone book, to be in which you have to win a lottery. As for the criteria for inclusion of biographies, Uncle J is likely to meet this one Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field in the field of independent journalism or something similarly worded, although since he's around, I'd prefer if he commented on it personally. As for Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, see here and here, look for "Blackfive" (the blog that he co-edits in addition to his personal blog). Ashanthalas 12:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see absolutely nothing in this article that suggests this individual will become a part of the "enduring historical record of that field". Since when was "blogger" a professional occupation? Especially compared to a painter, architect or engineer? As to your earlier comment, if the only notability an individual can show in his article is google search results, then he is not notable. This article is pure vanity, nothing more. Resolute 16:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, Michelle Malkin is a notable blogger and if you go to www.counterterrorismblog.org that is a blogger that is reputable on counter-terrorism. Therefore, a blogger is a profession. MRMKJason
• Delete or Redirect as above, just another blogger. Thryduulf 15:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reason to keep the entry is based on the notability of the author of Madison.com and BlackFive.net. First, BlackFive published a book "Blog of War" and authors of books are notable. Secondly, Uncle Jimbo is one of five authors on BlackFive and there should be an entry of BlackFive, as well as its published work, "Blog of War." Thirdly, Uncle Jimbo should have his own entry within the confines of a BlackFive entry and "The Blog of War: Front-Line Dispatches from Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan" entry. He is notable by affiliation of authorship through another blog that published a written work on the testimonials of soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan. Still, the Uncle Jimbo entry needs to be Wikified and cleaned up. There does need to be neutral entries into his article, as well as the aforementioned entry requests to put in context his notability. MRMKJason 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the author for Blog of War is listed as Matthew Currier Burden. Jim Hanson is no more notable by association than the random child of a President or Prime Minister is. Resolute 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Matthew Burden is BlackFive from BlackFive.net and he has made guest appearances on news shows. Also, there are entries of people that are associated with other people and Jenna Bush has an entry as the daughter of President Bush. Therefore, there are entries in the context of someone or something more notable. The book written by BlackFive and his blog is notable as testimonials of soliders during war. It is also notable as a book that publicizes military blogs and www.counterterrorismblog.org is a very reputable military blog for research on terrorism. Still, the BlackFive blog also contains other authors and are notable under the recognitiion of BlackFive's notoriety as the result of Matthew Burden aka BlackFive's work. MRMKJason
      • Matthew Burden is not Jim Hanson, however, which is entirely the point. You have argued the notability of Matthew Burden (published author), and of the website blackfive.net (top military blog on the net^{[citation needed]}) Yet you have yet to show a single argument on why Jim Hanson himself is notable. Resolute 16:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jim Hanson aka Uncle Jimbo is notable as one of the five others of BlackFive. Much like Jenna Bush, who is only notable for being a sibling to President Bush, Jim Hanson is notable for his authorship at BlackFive that is a top military blog and was implemented by a published author, Matthew Burden aka BlackFive. In addition, Michelle Malkin a blogger, has her own published works and entry into wikipedia. On the other hand, I do not think that the Jim Hanson entry should be alone. At least, there should be a BlackFive entry with all of the bios of the authors and the published work of Matthew Burden. Therefore, the Jim Hanson/Uncle Jimbo entry would be unnecessary if there were a BlackFive entry that had the bios of the authors and the BlackFive book. Without association to BlackFive than the entry by itself would not stand. Hence, there requires a BlackFive entry in order to give credence to its entry. MRMKJason
          • Also, a BlackFive entry with Uncle Jimbo would be good for those that want to research military blogs. For instance, Wikipedia is for the purposes of research and the BlackFive entry would serve the purposes for those that would want to research military blogs as a primary source into the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or past/present/future wars. MRMKJason
            • Well, I made an entry for BlackFive, so if any of you are interested, please make your entries. MRMKJason
              • Right now the BlackFive entry has a speedy deletion, but can be removed by other users and not by the person that created. Therefore, for those that support the BlackFive entry on its merits of being historical and newsworthy than remove the speedy deletion entry and update the article if you can. MRMKJason

• • • I appreciate the fact that you folks are considering ths article, and I just wanted to clarify a few things before a final decision is made. I did this because in researching my writings Wikipedia is the most useful tool on the internet for checking facts and I have been using it more and more. I work for madison.com selling online advertising, but I was writing my blog there for almost a year before I joined the company. They had shown support for citizen journalism and I wanted to help make sure the field would grow. Recently I had a row with the editorial board of the larger newspaper hosted on madison.com about the military commissions and prosoner interrogation. I did almost all of my research about the Geneva Conventions, Hamdan decision, and other related topics on Wikipedia and cited them in my piece.

While anyone who attaches their name to a piece of writing and believes the public ought to read it has an element of vanity, my purpose was more to join the community and hopefully add to the credibility of Wikipedia for more people. There is a perception that the editorial voice of Wikipedia is left of center, and while that is not by design, the perception certainly exists. I have two very distinct audiences, the one at Blackfive is largely pro-military while the one at madison.com is just as largely progressive. I have received positive feedback from the madison.com audience for my use and acceptance of Wikipedia and I have introduced it to a skeptical, but more accepting over time, audience at Blackfive.

I have not been active in editing other articles here yet, mostly because I am unfamiliar with the etiquette. I believe that the addition of myself and the other authors at Blackfive would be a positive thing for Wikipedia as it would aid in it's acceptance as a definitive non-partisan source of information. If this survives the deletion process I will add info to the article on myself in the proper format as well as one detailing Blackfive and it's authors. Obviously then the Wiki process will take those and build them into articles reflecting the community's perception.

Regarding the book "The Blog of War", The author is Matthew Burden "Blackfive" and although my work was included in the proposal that won the contract, it is not included in the book as the focus was tightened to active duty personnel and their families.

Citizen journalism and the blogosphere are having a larger effect on how the public gets information. Small as our contributions have been thus far, we are affecting changes. Thanks for your attention and hope this resolves in a positive manner for all of us. --Unclejimbo 17:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; no evidence of adequate notability. Postdlf 18:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and redirect as per Zoe. No encyclopedic notability apparent. Bwithh 19:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not just another blogger. The argument for re-redirecting to the Southpark supporting character's entry is ridiculous, I've never seen that character outside of the animimated show. This Uncle Jimbo has been on the radio and tv. FlyingSpaceMonkey 20:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not even especially notable among milbloggers on his own[1][2]. I would suggest a merge to Blackfive but we don't even have an article on that blog. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Uncle Jimbo is one of the prominent bloggers out there and to me it's perfectly okay because he's outspoken about his military views especially regarding Galloway. He would be most known in the blogging community just like User:Dailykos who works on his own biography as well sometimes. At least he worked his reputation up before the establishment of this article. He's not out to promote himself because he's already done that job. Uncle Jimbo is a reference I always attribute to Blackfive.net, not Madison. Googlebombing is a stupid excuse for this as he is already #1 & #2 on the search engine for Madison. Especially other blogs talk about Uncle Jimbo ie: [3] [4] [5]. The Uncle Jimbo wiki isn't even in the first four pages and so on. The proper link to South Park's "Uncle Jimbo" howver in the first four pages are Jimbo Kern and Recurring South Park characters. Again the idea of deletion is nonsense. ViriiK 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Pre-eminent MilBlogger. I fear many of the delete votes are political in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falshrmjgr (talk • contribs) 2006-10-9 02:19

Note: User's 4th edit. --Storkk 13:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Re: Note:' The number of my edits is irrelevant. The issue is whether the subject is worthy of entry. The notoriety of James Hanson as a Milblogger of repute has been established. What I attempted to draw attention to is the efforts by some to make a political statement, including your own "strong delete" below. The simple fact of the matter is that a personage who has established himself as a pre-eminent milblogger, including being referenced in the Washington Post [6] is of significant relevance for a wikipedia entry. Surely he has contributed more, and is more influential and recognizable than a random sample entry for a AAA Basball player who has 1 major league game to his credit. Example: Shane Komine Furthermore, your intimation that my number of edits is somehow relevant smacks of of the sort of elitism that is counter to the spirit of wikipedia and I take offense. You might want to take yourself back to the "Don't bite the newcomers" page. Falshrmjgr 06:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's very relevant. Please read WP:SOCK, especially the part about "meatpuppets". The fact that you have few edits casts a strong suspicion that you were asked to come here and create an account for the sole purpose of contributing to this discussion. We call this "vote fraud" even though this is not a vote. --Storkk 10:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voter fraud but not a vote? I thought we were supposed to argue the contents and not each other (at least, that's what I got yelled at for), and if a new user can add inforation on the content, I don't see how the number of edits is relevant. Maybe this just happens to be one area where the person is particular knowledable and can contribute.Frank J. Fleming 12:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since this isn't a vote, who does make the final decision?

• Redirect to Jimbo Wales and delete history before making the redirect. -Anomo 04:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimbo Wales is itself a redirect to Jimmy Wales. Thryduulf 10:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've watched all but 2 or 3 south park episodes and yet "Uncle Jimbo" makes me think of Jimbo Wales more than the south park character. Oh and then redirect to Jimmy Wales I guess. Anomo 10:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never heard of Jimmy Wales (I use Wikipedia constantly, but never cared to read about the founders). I don't see any Google hits for him under "Uncle Jimbo."192.190.121.109 13:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Even though I read Blackfive. Jinian 12:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, vanispamcruftisement. --Storkk 13:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A vanity entry for a nn notable blogger. The presence of an Internet-related persona on a search engine fails to indicate much along the lines of actual achievement. GassyGuy 15:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 17:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and link to BlackFive --- Metalman780 04:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New user. Arbusto 05:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New user or not, maybe a disambiguation page and a link to BlackFive would be a good idea, with any relevant data on Uncle Jimbo moved there. Frank J. Fleming 12:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I rewrote to be more stub-like. Jimbo is less notable than some bloggers who've been deleted from Wikipedia, but I agree with the point made about Wikipedia being too blog-hostile. Arcane television characters on cancelled shows get their own articles with the smallest minutiae (e.g., Sue Ellen Mischke) while IMAO.us and the like get repeatedly deleted (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/IMAO) in spite of being repeatedly referenced by virtually every right-wing blog and blog-like entity out there. Yes, Jimbo started this article and yes, it was badly written (partially in response to the RfD!), but I'd like to give it a chance before killing it outright. Calbaer 19:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After reading the stub it seems its apparent this persons views are regarded to some extent, they have had media appearances, host a popular blog and program. I am not sure what more you can ask. While I normally do not like bloggers and blogs for that matter this persons reach seems to extend beyond the, dare I say it, blogosphere. --NuclearZer0 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article is full of self-references. I happen to agree with the default presumption of non-notability for bloggers. In this day and age where everyone can be a blogger, this subject is no different in that he likes to have his opinion known, and that's about all, really. Except, oh, he wants to have an entry in wikipedia (to increase his credibility?) Ohconfucius 03:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI, the first link is not a self-reference, in spite of being from the same domain name. So only 2 of the 4 refs are self-references. Calbaer 06:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete absent multiple non-trivial independent mentions in external sources of provable authority. Warblogs are notable as a genre, individual warbloggers are not. Guy 10:41, 13 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPenn Art Club[edit]

Non-notable university club, no assertion of notability outside the university. Contested prod. MER-C 03:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A worthy club, but just not notable apart from within the university community. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete student clubs at a single school are virtually never given articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn university club. Eusebeus 11:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carcharoth 11:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite seems to deserve an article, the problem is that the article reads like a promo piece. Cynical 14:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A student organization at a single institution is usually non-notable. --Metropolitan90 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources include, so I can not honestly say is pass WP:ORG.-- danntm ^T _C 20:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom (CSDA7). Plenty of precedence which confirm dime-a-dozen student clubs like these are so far below the notability threshold to be even worth a redirect. Ohconfucius 03:07, 13 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 08:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Martens Memorial and San Tan Pride Association[edit]

An attempt to get a bio of an nn person into Wikipedia through the back door. Although deaths are sad, this person is, unfortunately, non-notable, and his memorial doesn't qualify as notable, either. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the multiple links to David Jason Silver, an article also created by this same user, which was deleted previously. More vanity by the same individual using a different method in an attempt to get his name in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jason Silver, where it was suggested that the person creating these articles is David Jason Silver. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senator John McCain has it on his Wikipedia web site under references. this is not notable, I think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harvardlaw (talk • contribs) 20:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about that little bit of spam you left. I've cleaned it up now. Also, please don't edit closed discussions, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jason Silver. -- Jonel | Speak 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not leave it John McCain's website, try again. I am not that computer literate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.204.214.142 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This and this suggest otherwise. -- Jonel | Speak 20:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Zoe. Eusebeus 11:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Emeraude 11:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if possible. I've been looking at Category:2003_Iraq_conflict and Category:American_Iraq_War_veterans, but nothing suitable covering war memorials has been written yet. See also Category:Monuments_and_memorials and War memorial, all of which emphasises the non-notability of this particular memorial. Failing anything else, merge the material into Santan, Arizona. Carcharoth 12:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per Zoe's nom Bwithh 13:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom -- back door memorial. Sorry about the young man, but we don't need 2500 articles on Wikipedia about every KIA (or should we have ~450,000 for all WW2 KIAs?). We certainly don't need two. We presume their local communities are honoring them appropriately. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Arguably sad, but that doesn't make it notable. --Storkk 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. More Silver promotion. -Will Beback 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Silver Kidd is going to open the eyes one day on Wikipedia. He is big time connected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.204.214.142 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• • This edit shows that the above is, surprise surprise, the Silver Kidd again. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "A very special" delete. Kafziel ^Talk 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Am I the only one to realize that the San Tan article contains more about the memorial than the Memorial article contains? I tend to agree with Carcharoth in this case: Merge after a healthy copyedit. --EarthPerson 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, it has that information because the author of these articles put it there. Something doesn't become more notable just because the author takes the time to edit a mention of it into every related article. Kafziel ^Talk 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we want to merge non-notable information into other non-notable information? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I wasn't clear. I realize that the same author made both articles. I found it interesting that they got sidetracked when writing them. IMO if anything should be kept, from either, it would be a brief mention in the Santan, Arizona article per Carcharoth's suggestion above. --EarthPerson 04:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, per Zoe, Dhartung, and others. Sorry he died, but non-notable in life and death. The underhanded efforts of David Jason Silver and his sockpuppets (Harvardlaw (talk), 72.204.214.142, 72.204.215.147, 72.204.215.178 (talk), 69.10.123.4 (talk), 24.137.173.67) to promote this and his causes, including himself, are not a credit to the person, to himself, or to the people he associates with. (see also incidentArchive116.) Hu 07:45, 13 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 - cleaned up since nomination - Yomangani^talk 11:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Erotic Network[edit]

reads like an ad, not adequately sourced or notable DanielCD 04:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Author tidied the language a bit and it's looking better, but would still like other opinions. --DanielCD 04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't assert notability. MER-C 05:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spamtastic. Danny Lilithborne 06:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How many markets is this available in? If it is available in a lot of markets, it is probably worth keeping. Article still needs work, although perhaps there isn't much to say about 7 channels of pant pant. --Brianyoumans 11:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have no idea why anyone would pay money for porn these days when there's an infinite amount of it for free online, but this seems notable. It's carried on Dish network, and thus available to at least 12 million people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan Cynical 14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there is an actual indication that it meets WP:CORP guidelines other than the number of people that could subscribe to it (but may or may not). Leuko 14:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does seem to meet the media-coverage requirement of WP:CORP. Here is one story, for example, and here is another from the Washinton Post. It even seems to have figured into the Scott Peterson trial, of all things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Then weak keep if it can be written more like an encyclopedia article, and less like an advertisement. Leuko 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP! I am the author of this article that has recieved so much attention for what reason I know not?! I have edited the article several times and feel that the present version is not like the original. For those that wish to delete it, why don't you edit it, change things to your liking, instead of just saying 'delete it'?? That's cheap, take the easy way out why don't you?!The whole point of this site (from my understanding) is that it is a public project, anyone can contribute in whatever way they feel would be useful. So step up and contribute- change what you don't like, make it into a better article than it currently is. I have seen articles on this site that don't qualify as articles, they are only 5-10 words, a sentence at most but they are still up last time I checked. Why are other articles about Porn channels still up and this one is slated for deletion?? I am still awaiting an answer on that one but so far nothing but silence. Based on the subject matter (adult channel) I have done what I can with the article, you don't like it- fine then delete it. It descibes a PPV service that is available in the United States, according to the corporate site, to over 100 million households. I mentioned that it consists of 7 channels, 3 are on Dish Network and 2 were just added to DirecTV. It may also be available on cable but I have no information on that. It is one of 2 major adult PPV services in the U.S., the other being Playboy/Spice Network. I think that makes it deserving of being on the site but I have no final say so my opinion means nothing. As a result of this current action with this article, I am seriously re-considering my future contributions to this site. It seems I don't know how to write a good article, just spam, so no point in writing anything else. I will no longer write any more articles and may just stop contributing all together. It seems that this site like alot of other sites on the net is now 'controlled', so much for free speech. I guess the internet as the last bastion of freedom is slowly coming to an end. Keep it or delete it, its up to you, I have said my piece.HeMan5 19:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: HeMan5, people aren't personally against you or the article. Wikipedia has minimum standards for articles, which is why this Articles for Deletion section exists. Discussion deletion is one option for handling an article that doesn't meet those standards. We hope htat you will learn a bit more about what is acceptable on Wikipedia and why. But Wikipedia isn't a "bastion of freedom" for anyone to write anything, it is intended to be a usable encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as per HeMan5 Igbogirl 18:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just barely keep as this is a nationally available cable channel. The post-Danny version of the article is acceptable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I agree. Article as it stands meets minimum standards and doesn't read so much like SPAM anymore. I'd like to see more content though, if possible. --DanielCD 00:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's enough cruft floating around that there's no sense bouncing something like this. Needs a lot of cleanup and expansion though - marking it as such would not be a bad idea. Lord Rasputin 21:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DanielCD. Now has more encyclopedic tone. FloNight 18:00, 12 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. Deizio talk 11:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Queen Creek, Arizona[edit]

Do we really want an article which lists all of the mayors of a town with less than 5000 people? I have no problem with having an article on every place in the world, but on the mayors of all of those places? I think not. And, as I write this, the only entry is actually linking to somebody else, not the mayor of the town. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: list cruft. Unnecessary, not notable, not useful. Hu 05:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ?! Danny Lilithborne 05:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Queen Creek, Arizona doesn't even have a "Government" section, let alone a need for a breakout sub-article such as this. Uncle G 12:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT --Alex (Talk) 13:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hu Cynical 14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. Punkmorten 14:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I live in the area, and Queen Creek is very small. WP:LC for a small town. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 18:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Recreate only when the population large enough to warrant such mention. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any relevant info can be merged with city article. -Will Beback 00:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With one entry, it's not a list. Start with five. -- User:Docu

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

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

The result was speedy delete, created by banned user.--SB | T 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Commonwealth Numismatic Project[edit]

Delete: this page is a non-notable vanity page for Aidan Work, who is now posting as Paisleyite1976 (talk). Aidan Work was banned from Wikipedia in January of 2006: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aidan Work.

• Delete as a non-notable project lacking appropriate independent reliable sources. I think if we know the creator is actually the banned person, there is a speedy deletion category that would cover deletion. Erechtheus 06:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Peta 02:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposed to deletion on the grounds that it is NOT a vanity page, but one to make members of the Numismatics WikiProject aware of what is going on. - (Paisleyite1976 02:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Speedy delete as user is banned and hence should not be editing in the first place. --Kiand 22:39, 9 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. Deizio talk 11:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Linney Barber[edit]

Biography of a small business owner and minor social figure from 19th century britain. No reason for inclusion given or apparent. Uploaded as an obituary by someone likely a relation. Icelight 04:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, creator was Pbarber2 (talk · contribs). Delete as an obituary. MER-C 05:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP not a memorial. Eusebeus 11:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why didn't that family whose third daughter he captured try to rescue her? Unremarkable, except for the brazen kidnapping. --Brianyoumans 11:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN per nom. (I assume that "captured" is idiom for "eloped" or whatnot. In context, anyway.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 8 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 by request of author. Wickethewok 18:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of wikis about St. Louis, Missouri[edit]

This article is highly unnecessary - I doubt there are enough wikis about St. Louis that it needs its entire article. This page seems to have come about via a discussion here: Talk:St._Louis,_Missouri#Link_Spam_Discussion, where it was decided that all linkspam about St. Louis needed its own page. So far, all the article is is an external link. I don't think there are that many wikis about St. Louis that meet WP:WEB. And if it is the intention of the article to be a collection of external links (as opposed to wikilinks), WP is not for that purpose. Delete. Wickethewok 04:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Possible even speedy delete under A3: "No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title." TJ Spyke 05:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason I chose not to speedy it is because it was borne out of a talk page discussion. Wickethewok 07:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete er, the hell? Danny Lilithborne 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wickethewok. The discussion at Talk:St. Louis, Missouri#Link Spam Discussion seems misguided to the extent that it encouraged the establishment of this article. Either the wikis about St. Louis should be external links at St. Louis, Missouri or they should not be listed on Wikipedia at all. --Metropolitan90 06:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I actually totally agree, and I made the page. This was made per a discussion of someone claiming that many St. Louis wikis had been posted as external links and that he didn't feel they were appropriate. This was the compromise, but I feel [WikiLou belongs in the external links, or nowhere at all (though I'm for the former). Thanks. -69.150.42.75 07:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Anon, if you are User:Mijunkin you can speedy the deletion by adding ((db-author))--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 07:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this is hilarious! List of wikis? Almost as good as the "list of sting rays that have killed notable people" article a while back. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy A3 per TJ Spyke. Failing that Delete/assassinate/burn with fire. Cynical 14:44, 8 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 by admin User:Grandmasterka as lacking context. --Nlu (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Scholar[edit]

Appears abandoned by its created (hadn't been edited for two weeks), and right now provides no real information. Speedy delete as a nearly empty article unless fleshed out during process. --Nlu (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - no context. So tagged. MER-C 05:12, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.T.'s Revenge[edit]

I fail to see any assertion of notability here, and with no such assertion backed up by a reliable source, this fails the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. Also, the article is entirely unsourced, and may be vanity. Delete under verifiability and notability guidelines. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion as nominator. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pure vanity and spam. As BradPatrick told us, "fire at will". Daniel.Bryant 05:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yet another nn band. (What Brad Patrick said applies to corporate vanity, now covered by A7 and G11). MER-C 06:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only source I can find mentioning their albums is this article. That doesn't speak well for notability or verifiability. GassyGuy 07:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Touring schedule and members of notable projects put this in adherence with WP:MUSIC, or didn't you read the article? "Fire at will?" So embarassing. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a side project, ergo, members of notable projects doesn't really apply. However, my main concern is that there's not, like, you know, a source for this information. Anywhere. Oh, wait, never mind. They have a myspace page. And we totally use those as sources. Don't we? I would be more inclined to keep this article if somebody could find any documentation at all of their having done what it claims they did. But don't let WP:V get in the way of being snide and attempting to discredit the community as a whole as inferiors. GassyGuy 02:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it ironic that he finds me embarrasing, yet four of PT's recent AfD closes have ended up at DRV, and 3 overturned. That is what I consider embarrasing. Daniel.Bryant 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the whole community inferior or embarrassing, just those of you who know nothing about music, yet insist on nominating bands for AfD. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you might want to create a punk rock wiki and take your elitism with you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the sentiment, you've still yet to demonstrate to those of us who know nothing and think this should be deleted where this particular entry meets WP:V. It's one thing to claim that an act meets WP:MUSIC. I could write an article about myself and make sufficient (false) claims to that easily. It's another entirely to prove them. GassyGuy 20:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are assuming bad faith of the editors of this article? Here are some links for you: This magazine interview proves the band has notable members, as does this webzine. A simple Google search for the band names pulls up many old concert dates which proves they played beyond their hometown (not that only touring bands meet WP:MUSIC). I think the AfDing of all these band articles is part of some sort of disruptive agenda. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I think the AfDing of all these band articles is part of some sort of disruptive agenda." That's illogical; it's a unanimous delete besides you. The only one assuming bad faith here is you. You like throwing these acronyms at people as a way of assuming bad faith, but you clearly don't even know what WP:POINT means. If we didn't want this article deleted it would be disruptive. Dmcdevit·t 23:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets WP:MUSIC. Period. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a grand total of zero sources, that is objectively impossible. Dmcdevit·t 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See External Links section and Talk Page of article. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you call sources? Neither of these websites even indicates that "P.T.'s Revenge" exists. Dmcdevit·t 00:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not looking at them very closely then. It's sad when, even faced with sources, stubborn editors still insist on a Delete. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake. "Pt" threw me off, because I just searched for the words in my browser and that's not how the article calls them. In any case, this doesn't really establish anything. There is an important distinction between sources and external links. Nowhere does it confirm ay of the article's claims. Dmcdevit·t 05:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unindenting With all due respect, those links confirm that a band called PT's Revenge exists. I don't argue that. I also don't think the editors of this article created it in bad faith. The only issue I'm bringing up is verifiability, and I don't mean verifying that "there is a band called PT's Revenge," because I've yet to claim there isn't. What I can't find are sources that indicate that PT's Revenge has done the notable things claimed of them. I did read your sources, and both of them simply refer to it as "Kevin's old band." That's not enough. GassyGuy 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it IS enough. I know that the band is notable, but I can't prove that to YOU without some internet link. So, I have to fall back upon the WP:MUSIC criteria of this being the project of a notable musician. The links I provide do that. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could offer me a citation from a print reference or some such if one exists. I actually prefer book references to Internet ones when they're available. But, yes, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect proof of notability. For what it's worth, the musician in question isn't really notable outside the context of other bands (which still makes him notable by WP:MUSIC, not arguing that) but all that seems to justify is a notation in other articles that mention him that he is "formerly of P.T.'s Revenge," as is already done in the Teen Idols article, because that appears to be the only verifiable claim to notability. Even if this article were to stay, most of the information would have to be excised as unverifiable, which would leave it of very limited utility. GassyGuy 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, I'm not from Detroit, we'd need editors from that area to contribute. And I think it is more within the spirit of Wikipedia to allow this article to remain and be expanded, rather than erase it from the record altogether. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article does not cite any non-trivial publications to demonstrate subject is noteworthy. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If notability was sufficient, there would be credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 00:55, 11 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 wasMerge and redirect to Vril. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vril (energy)[edit]

Does not warrant its own article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why not wait for the creator to finish working on the article before AfDing it? - Lex 05:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because there is no way, no matter what the creator adds to it, that the subject warrant its own article. --Nlu (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the already existing article Vril. -- Cardamon 05:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can't anyone see that the vril article has virtually nothing except for a brief explaination about it and then goes straight to talking about the vril society that does not even have anything to do with the plot of the story(Vril:The Coming Race). Also there is the link in the coming race article which leads straight to the vril article that doesn't explain about this but instead talks about conspiracy theories. By the way if you have read the book you should notice that the plot and vril is not even about conspiracies or nazis. Anyway it would be dissapointing if you can't even diffrentiate a plot element from a conspiracy. Asarhapi 10:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense, the content can be easily merged to Vril.Eusebeus 11:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you wrote here [7] that you intended to write a new article about Vril as in the novel. Granted, the Vril article is in terrible shape and I can understand not wanting to deal with it. However, I think that the new article probably counts as a POV fork. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your stay here.

• Merge to Vril. I agree that Vril needs to be cleaned up; probably Vril Society should be its own article; but that is no reason to have two articles on Vril itself. Brianyoumans 11:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Vril. Thryduulf 14:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per all above. Vril does need to be cleaned up, and what's here, though needing heavy editing for grammar and tone, is actually better than what is at the current article. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I've changed my mind. I had just read the small article that was there yesterday, but after seeing the current updates and reading Vril and The Coming Race, I think the best option for this article is to merge it with Vril. - Lex 19:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Vril and Close. I doubt we'll have disambiguation issues with this one. People Powered 00:15, 10 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 09:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Durham Station[edit]

Evidence indicates that this Battle did not exist:

What is the source for claiming this was a battle? (I just noticed the failed request for deletion, so am late to the party.) Durham Station was the location of Johnston's surrender on April 26, 1865, but I was not aware hostilities were involved that day; an armistice was signed April 18. (See Bennett Place and Carolinas Campaign.) I checked with

• Phisterer, Frederick, Statistical Record of the Armies of the United States, Castle Books, 1883, ISBN 0-7858-1585-6.

which has a big list of 2,261 battles and skirmishes and it is not mentioned. The travel site http://www.civilwar-va.com/northcarolina/CarolinasCampaign.html is pretty comprehensive and it doesn't mention it either. Hal Jespersen 00:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - as nom --Ineffable3000 05:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 06:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my reasoning in the first AfD. I had a go trying to find more about this, but I couldn't, as it simply doesn't seem to exist. No Civil War book in my posession mentions it. The Durham Chamber of Commerce has a history page which mentions the Bennett Place surrender but says nothing about any battle there. The only reference anywhere to this "battle" is a handful of "This Day in History" websites, which give the same date as the Bennett Place surrender, so it's pretty clear they're confusing the conference/surrender for a battle. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• According to this, this and this there was a battle by this name on 1865-04-26, although they say nothing at all about it. According to this, Henry Mattern was wounded at this battle. Uncle G 10:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that 1865-04-26 is also the date of the surrender at Bennett Place, which is why I believe the websites have gotten the surrender cofused with a battle. The surrender was a major event indeed: it pretty much ended the whole war (though there were some minor events afterward) and if a battle had taken place on the same date in the same town (!!!) there would be much written about it. There isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (Someone copied my Talk page text above, but I might as well vote formally.) Unless someone can come up with a reference that describes an actual battle (vs. one of those day-in-history websites that merely lists it), this page should be deleted. Since I wrote the original text, I also searched through the Official Records and find no hostilities mentioned on April 26. Hal Jespersen 16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. If this kind of article is kept, it will open up all sorts of weird articles which lack of any significance. Some local conflict is definetly not encyclopedia material. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  20:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Durham Station. T REX_speak 16:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I suspect the theory that this was just a surrender, and not a battle, is correct, but I would suggest contacting an expert in the field who can verify this. Also, the website here that Uncle G quoted mentions two people wounded in this battle, so maybe there was a skirmish before the formal surrender? Those reports of wounded men need to be explained before we can say for sure that there was no battle at all. Carcharoth 18:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The two soldiers who were wounded had no military record and no official report was filed for them. That is probably why they aren't mentioned in any books. If only two people died/were injured then I don't think it was much of a battle and therefore isn't notable even if it did exist. T REX_speak 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per arguments above. Carcharoth 20:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per OR and Boatner who writes: "By 13 Apr., however, he (Johnston) realized that the situation was hopeless, and the next day requested an armistice. Without renewal of hostilities, he surrendered on 26 Apr. '65." (CW Dictionary, article Carolinas Campaign, pg 127.) True, Bennett House near Durham Station was the site of surrender, but no hostilities appear in the standard sources. If someone got injured, it was likely an "administrative" injury, hard feelings occuring during the stand down. BusterD 01:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pedia-I ^{Project Jesus} 15:26, 14 April 2024 UTC [refresh]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - has had citations added since AFD started. - Yomangani^talk 11:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths of science fiction movie and television series[edit]

This is original research and really seems to be quite random. Ponch's Disco 05:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a great big "So what" Danny Lilithborne 05:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Resolute 06:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've asked another user at the bottom of the discussion, this list is not one of the examples of indiscriminate articles from the Not Indiscriminate guide you linked to. In what way do you see this as being indiscriminate? --Arctic Gnome 05:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has curiosity value, though.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 07:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Intereesting and useful: provides a quick at-a-glance way to compare various sci-fi series by length. I think our definition of "original research" is starting to get overly-broad. It was supposed to protect us from crackpot theories and "Dude, what if the whole universe is just a hair on an ant's butt?" silliness. None of this article is original research. If one wants to find out how long, say, Blade Runner is, there's a thousand different places to find it: the IMDB, the DVD, countless video guides. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You don't even have to go as far as IMDB. This information is available in the existing Wikipedia articles about each series. This list exists so users can make a quick comparison of these specific facts about the series. It's just like how wikipedia has a list of past presidents so that the reader does not have to look at each president's page to compare them. --Arctic Gnome 05:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Danny Lilithborne. --Brianyoumans 11:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Andrew Lenahan. The Wookieepedian 13:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for being pointless trivia collected under the pretense of academic research. Interrobamf 13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Several people around the net have found a point for it; see the bottom of the discussion. --Arctic Gnome 15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nicely formatted, but still listcruft. ... discospinster _talk 15:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Resolute. --Metropolitan90 15:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not original research, but merely a collation of information from other sources. Potential value to anyone researching science fiction series. FrozenPurpleCube 15:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as a usefully put together collection of data that is not itself all that important. It's not OR, although it leans toward an indiscriminate collection of information. Given a potential usefulness to someone wondering exactly what they are getting in for when starting a new sci-fi series (which is happening more and more as DVD season sets continue to come out), I'd say err on the side of leaving it alone. It can be reviewed at a future date if it expands in foolish directions or is not maintained. -Markeer 16:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or move somewhere else (make sure the individual SF series articles have the information), because I just know I will want to refer back to this one day! Incidentially, I suspect this started from the tendency of Star Trek and Star Wars fans to run "24-hour marathon viewings" of their oeuvres. Carcharoth 18:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft Bwithh 20:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listcruft and will be extremely hard to maintain. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've had no difficulty maintaining it over the past year. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But listcruft nonetheless. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Incredible listcruft. -- Kicking222 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A useful almanac-style list. As Andrew Lenahan points out, it's not original research, but a collation of information available at dozens of other locations. Citations can be provided if verifiability is the concern. Whether it's too trivial to merit inclusion in Wikipedia is, of course, an individual judgment, but I'd question whether it's any more trivial or listcrufty than the vast majority of the articles in Category:Sports-related lists; I'm sure that as many people would find this useful and worthy of inclusion as, say, List of Hail Marys in American football or List of Indianapolis 500 winning starting positions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for pointing out that there are also other lists are also listcruft and hence worthy of deletion. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indiscriminate collection of information (listcruft). Valrith 23:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It isn’t indiscriminate at all; the article describes very clearly what belongs in the list and how it is organised. Neither science fiction nor motion pictures are random categorisations made up by the article’s creators. --Arctic Gnome 14:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as per Markeer. It's not an indiscriminate collection of information as it provides an actual context and criteria for the information. Maintainance is not really an issue because there are obviously people willing to maintain it (and it gives counts up to whichever episode it mentions, so again the context - and the limits of the information - is clear). As for cruft, it really depends on your definition, although I would say that it's a step above most cruft insofar as it is actually interesting to see how long certain series have lasted and the breadth of fictional universes. I, too, would err on the side of keeping it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not original research. Somewhat indiscriminate, but potentially useful, collection of information -- enough so that I'm inclined to give it benefit of the doubt. Might be NPOV/citation issues (who's deciding what's "canon"?), but that calls for cleanup, not deletion. Shimeru 09:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or maybe move it something like SCIFIpedia before deleting it from here. --GracieLizzie 11:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the sheer fact that it's a useful collection of information, that clearly a number of people have use for it, and that clearly a number of people have put a lot of work over a long period toward maintaining it. I've often seen links to this article, in conversations about TV sci-fi.--Aderack 17:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Useful and original data set, even if not of interest to everyone. It is well presented, well linked and thus can serve as an extension of the information available on this site for many films/programmes. --Orbling 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have twice seen this article used as a reference on other websites, meaning people are finding it useful. It is an accurate, up-to-date, almanac-style list. --Arctic Gnome 05:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definetely not liftcruft. It's verifiable, managable and very useful– a lot of people are interested in it. Just the other day I saw someone cite it to resolve a question they were having [8]. Makgraf 05:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR by default due to lack of any WP:RS. Sandstein 07:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's not the way it works. Reliable sources for this information exist, so it's merely a matter of citation, which is not a reason for deletion. Shimeru 08:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's the way it works. Per WP:RS: "The responsibility for finding and adding references lies with the person adding material to an article, and sources should be provided whenever possible." Per WP:V: "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." So a lack to cite sources is very valid grounds for deletion. Just asserting that sources exist somewhere isn't a valid remedy. Sandstein 17:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're misreading WP:V. The criterion isn't whether information is verified, it's whether it's verifiable. Yes, it is important that we cite our sources on Wikipedia; but that's not a deletion criterion. The criterion is whether such sources can be provided. An article on my cat Maggie is unverifiable, because no reliable source could be provided. Sources can be provided for the information in this article (and, indeed, Arctic Gnome has begun to do so). This article isn't original research, but a collation of widely available data. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was not arguing this article fails WP:V; I'm arguing that it fails WP:OR by default because it has (or had) no sources. But strictly speaking, it does fail WP:V, because I think you are misreading WP:V by stating that "The criterion is whether such sources can be provided." Quoting from WP:V again: "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research." It also says that "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." Read together, this means that, in case of disputes, the criterion of WP:V is whether sources are in fact (not: can be) provided. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, for WP:OR compliance. Sandstein 18:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unsourced material is not the same as original research. In this case, any reader can in fact check the information against reliable published sources. The error lies in the fact that the citation isn't (or wasn't) provided -- which is not in itself a reason for deletion. If the material were questioned, and such sources were not (or, more to the point, could not be) cited by editors, then there might be reason for deletion as OR -- however, since the citations can be (and are being) provided, this meets WP:V criteria. Ideally, of course, all articles would be both verifiable and verified -- but the fact that a given article is not yet verified is grounds for cleanup, not deletion. Deletion of verifiable material is simply counterproductive when cleanup is a possibility. (This is also, I believe, why the policy states "unsourced material may be challenged and removed," rather than "will be... removed." Babies, bathwater, you know the drill.) Shimeru 20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything on this page comes from imdb or tv.com. I'll give the article links to those websites. --Arctic Gnome 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. But I'm sorry to say these sources are rather unspecific. These are big websites, you know. How about providing specific inline references for the individual shows? Sandstein 18:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm on it. --Arctic Gnome 20:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We were just having a discussion about doctor who, and how long the canon had been running. We, of course, turned to wikipedia as a handy and usually reliable reference.
• Keep It's not original research and provides information which might be useful and which would otherwise be rather arduous to compile. --Bolognaking 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Indiscriminate, but interestingly so ;-) Ohconfucius 03:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list is not one of the examples of indiscriminate articles from the guide you linked to. In what way do you see this as being indiscriminate? --Arctic Gnome 05:30, 13 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 as hoax. El_C 07:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish breeding program[edit]

I was unable to find any (English language) evidence of any such program. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 05:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete me neither. --Richard 07:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence that this is true. QuiteUnusual 10:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolute nonsense. Emeraude 11:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, nonsense and/or hoax. "Source" cited leads to an error page when attempting to read full article. Seraphimblade 04:22, 10 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 delete. —Xezbeth 07:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Syndicate[edit]

Hmm... non notable forum, I think, with 111 members... although it is hard to know what the article is about without doing some meditation. I wonder if CSD:G1 could be applied here... -- ReyBrujo 05:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete makes as much sense as also cocks. PS also cocks. Danny Lilithborne 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Utter nonsense. TJ Spyke 06:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - right... So tagged. MER-C 06:44, 8 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. Malformed and pointless nomination by an anonymous contributor. Re-list with an explanation if you believe this article should be deleted. Thanks, RFerreira 00:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antelope Valley High School[edit]

Precedural nom, completing afd by an anon. Abstain. MER-C 06:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not enthusiastic about having every high school in the world in Wikipedia, but this actually seems like it has some small claim to fame. --Brianyoumans 11:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Antelope Valley Union High School District per WP:SCHOOL Eusebeus 11:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SCHOOL 'The school has been or was in existence for over 50 years'. It opened in 1912. Cynical 14:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cynical. Also, Frank Zappa and Priscilla Barnes? That's notable right there! ;-) ... discospinster _talk 15:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. I think there's been a general decision that all high schools are considered notable. Can we try not to have these nominations anymore, or if they occur can these please be speedy keeped. Nlsanand 18:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC
• Keep per Cynical and discospinster. Lots of notable alumni. --Myles Long 19:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Such a school with a long history and so many notable alumni should be worth keeping. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep very notable alumni, long term school... seems a good strong keep to me.  ALKIVAR™ 22:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Why was this nominated for deletion? I don't see any actual reason for this still-incomplete "procedural nom", and yet this school is chock-full of notable alumni. Silensor 02:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep We have near-complete that articles for high schools are inherently notable. This particular school, with several notable alumni, makes a clear case for retention. Alansohn 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Notable. — RJH (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my belief that all secondary schools and above are notable, coupled with the fact that this school has a considerable amount of notable graduates. Yamaguchi先生 23:13, 9 October 2006 23:13

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keza[edit]

Unencyclopedic unsourced original research. Non-notable name. Contested prod. MER-C 07:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Googling +Keza +Kieran +nickname gives 3 unique results. — TKD::Talk 07:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• We have an encyclopaedia article on diminutives. We do not need individual articles on each individual name. Individual articles on individual nouns, proper or common, is Wiktionary's remit. Delete. Uncle G 11:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be a strange take on the vanity page. Probably a hoax, definitely unencyclopedic. -- IslaySolomon 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:33, 9 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 as A7 by NCurse. ~ trialsanderrors 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asaf Cohen[edit]

Supposedly a hero in New Zealand, but more likely only his mind. No pertinent Google [9][10], Newsbank or Newsbank hits. Likely hoax, hence not speediable. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 07:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions proposed by an anonymous fool are absurdly outlandish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.130.54 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. Even just "Asaf Cohen" barely turns up anything on Google, much less this particular person. I can't find anything to satisfy WP:V, which implies very strongly to me that WP:BIO will be failed as well. Luna Santin 04:17, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity_Valentine[edit]

Edit logs show this cutesy entry to be mostly autobiographical and self-serving. Realliveprincess 07:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 547 hits. MER-C 07:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per those above, although serious credit for naming a band after Snorri Sturluson. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very regional, very autobiographic. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  20:06, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Jaeger[edit]

This article has, in its time, being about 2 different people, a DJ and a Doctor. The DJ has been prodd'd as non-notable and the Doctor has been questioned as a possible hoax. So this AfD is about 2 different people, so the questions are delete both? Lift and separate both? Or delete just one? It looks like delete both to me. --Richhoncho 08:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both (confession: I ((prod))'d the article earlier for the same reasons). The DJ doesn't meet WP:BIO. The researcher either doesn't do well when Googling, and looks hoaxish, but perhaps will do better on JSTOR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can find nothing published by this researcher on Pubmed. TimVickers 15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The "researcher" has no published journal articles in the alleged area of specialty I could find, nor does the name show up at the alleged university connection except as a student. This appears to be a hoax that existed for nearly five years without anyone noticing, and might be one of the longest-surviving vandalisms on WP. Gimmetrow 01:11, 10 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 08:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huxley family[edit]

This article does not give any reason for the Huxley family being notable or even have a good deal of information on more than one member. Dev920 (Tory?) 08:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Personally I feel that the Huxley family being notable is a given and there's no need to explain why they're notable. To ask why is about like asking why the Darwin — Wedgwood family is notable. Anyway the Huxleys have produced a Nobel Prize winner, one of the most known names in 20th century literature, etc.--T. Anthony 10:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The family isn't notable, some members of the family are. These members of the family already have their own entries, the family one is superfluous. QuiteUnusual 11:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete superfluous information. We already have articles on the various notable Huxleys. Eusebeus 11:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to QuiteUnusual and Eusebeus: the article is summarising a topic, and as such will appear to be superfluous when it is not. Please see Wikipedia:Summary style for more on this. Carcharoth 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Interrobamf 13:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking, right? This article is not trying to turn Wikipedia into a genealogical database, it is merely showing family relationships between notable people. There are lots of family trees in Wikipedia, but they have to involve notable people. This family tree clearly does involve notable people. Carcharoth 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about being a geneological site. There is already a Category:Huxley family and this family is significant as a family. It's not just a family that happened to produce some famous people. For many to most of the people named their being Huxley's had some impact on their history. For example many Leftist critics of Brave New World cited that Aldous Huxley was of the "Huxley family" and therefore dismissed his criticism of a future that was dull/overly-clean as the whinings of a child of privilege. (This was either in Rai's "Orwell and the Politics of Despair" or possibly Hillegas's "The Future as Nightmare") There's other cases too.--T. Anthony 19:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They are not notable, they are a very important family. I can't think of a more noteworthy family in science and literature. It also shows relation to Arnold fam. I agree with above statements generally, but suspect users do not understand Huxley and Arnolds significance or believe their relationships to be an odd coincidence. Fred.e 14:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete whether the individual members are notable or not is irrelevant. The question is the family name, in its own right? And the answer is no, or at last it has not been made obvious in the article. Dev920 (Tory?) 14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If notability has not been made in the article, the answer is to add notability, rather than delete! The comments elsewhere in this debate attest to the notability of this family. Carcharoth 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete sure, SOME family members are notable but they are listed invidually. Why is a listing for the entire family necessary? Why not list the entire Baldwin family if this is your policy? That family has produced several notable actors. Igbogirl 18:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the Baldwin brothers article?--T. Anthony 19:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment Here's the thing, ALL of the Baldwin brothers listed are notable. Are all of the Huxleys notable? What's wrong with just listing the notable Huxleys individually?

Huxley family does not list all the Huxleys. It lists only the notable Huxleys, as you are asking for, and it included an image that shows the Huxley family tree to show the relationships between the notable Huxleys. Where is the problem? Carcharoth 19:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there is precedent on Wikipedia for this sort of article. See my examples listed below. And listing the entire family is what a family tree does. The important thing is to ensure that the accompanying text only mentions the notable family members. Carcharoth 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - the alternative is to have a family tree template in each of the articles on the notable members of the Huxley families. This article should be considered a sub-article of each Huxley article, and it survives on the notability of the individual Huxleys. As T. Anthony pointed out above, family articles are acceptable, as shown by Darwin — Wedgwood family. Having said that, the family tree image is at some of the Huxley articles, and is at Category:Huxley family. However, there is massive precedent for family articles on Wikipedia. See Category:English families for other examples, such as Redgrave family, Mander family, Pease family (Darlington), Keynes_family. This article needs improvement, and the notability needs to be made explicit, but deletion is not the answer. Carcharoth 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - another example of a family article, though rather different, is Ptolemaic dynasty. Returning to the present day, this sort of geneaological information allows people browsing Keynes family to see that one of the child actors in the recent The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe film (Skandar Keynes) is a great-great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin. Carcharoth 19:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with respect, such information is of no interest to me at all. It might be of more interest to people who play the game Trivial Pursuit.Igbogirl 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right. Subjective opinion as to what fails to interest different people is not a good way to decide what should be in an encyclopedia. Master Keynes (a namesake of Alexander the Great incidentially, for the trivia fans) when asked about this, said "yeah, but there are a lot of them" (great-great-great-grandsons of Charles Darwin, that is). Smart kid. Carcharoth 00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Carcharoth as having half-a-dozen closely related notable individuals calls for such an overview article. Genealogical information of non-notable persons is one thing, this is showing the relationships. It would be cumbersome and confusing to point out all these relationships in the individual articles, but here we can include a family tree and show the relationships. This is not possible merely with a Category (theoretically the tree could go on the category page, but who would look for it there?). --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There can be no question the family is notable.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As individuals, yes. As a family? Dev920 (Tory?) 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. They've been the subject of articles and the book The Huxleys by Ronald W. Clark (McGraw-Hill, 398 pp.)[11][12]--T. Anthony 03:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, no question about it IMO. Charlene.fic 00:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the Tolstoy family, or the Bach family.  --Lambiam^Talk 05:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a List of members of the Huxley family, only presented in non-list form. How many lists are inherently notable? They are lists of notable individual topics, and they simply provide an alternative entrance to the data. Categories do this, but lists serve different functions from categories. --Dhartung | Talk 20:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says, it is a stub. A whole book has been written on the topic. The question I answered to was not: Is this ripe for being a Featured Article, but: Is the topic notable?  --Lambiam^Talk 22:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused now. Lambian and Dhartung, you have both voted keep, but seem to be arguing about something. I can't quite work out what though! Carcharoth 23:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be arguing about whether this should be deemed a list or an article. I tend to feel that lists are articles of a kind so that's not important to me. Also that debate is best for after the vote.--T. Anthony 01:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got confused by Dhartung's comment. If this stubby article is doomed to remain "just" a list of the notable individual members of the family, well, then for this case I don't see an advantage in the list form over the category. It is the potential of a full-fledged article that makes me recommend it to be kept.  --Lambiam^Talk 04:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reply was to Dev920, not Lambiam. Sorry for the confusion -- I thought the indent was enough! To clarify my point and this unintended tangent: I believe it is a potential article, which is why a category is insufficient. I wasn't arguing against expansion, simply noting that a list, like a category, is an organizational tool. --Dhartung | Talk 01:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Obviously notable family. up+land 03:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable families do customarily get articles, see e.g Medici. Sandstein 07:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant with Category:Huxley family. I was going to suggest moving the image to the category page, but I see it's already there. Angr 08:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category page serves a different function to the article. The article should be (eventually) an overview article, like the many other family articles pointed out on this page. Please click on a few of them to see what I mean. Just because this article may not have reached a mature stage yet, and appears to be redundant, is not a reason for deletion. Carcharoth 10:58, 10 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, and also delete Out of the frying pan (into the fire). El_C 07:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 2nd glance, restore frying pan, since that link is actually dead (someone added the template to the article, so I thought it was real). El_C 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From bad to worse[edit]

A popular, but unremarkable phrase. The article itself is a dicdef. I'm not sure if there are any set policies for dealing with stuff like this, but this seems totally unencylopedic. Should we have articles on Good but not great, Face was as white as a sheet, Crack of dawn and I'll eat my hat? Nydas 09:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wikitionary. doktorb _words^deeds 10:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per nom. MER-C 10:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would argue that "from bad to worse" and "good but not great" are stock phrases - commonly used groupings of words that mean exactly what they say. This is different from sayings like the "crack of dawn", which might need to be explained to those unfamiliar with the language. I would say simple stock phrases don't merit any sort of entry, in Wikipedia or Wiktionary. --Brianyoumans 11:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A few such phrases have histories or encyclopedic value but not even all of those have articles. This is pointless. --Dhartung | Talk 21:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Brianyoumans. Sandstein 07:38, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silvermoon's law[edit]

Another non-notable 'law' with 49 Ghits[13]. Devoid of notability and reliable sources. And who is Silvermoon anyway? Nydas 09:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Most people attribute "Foolproof systems do not take into account the ingenuity of fools." to Gene Brown. Whilst this quotation would make a useful addition to q:fools, it is nowhere near enough to form the basis of a whole encyclopaedia article. ISBN 0099264900 simply lists "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious." as one of several variations of Murphy's Law, which makes it a candidate for q:Murphy's Law. But the same book contains no listing at all for Silvermoon, and there is no other source material at all on this purported law. It exists in a few unsourced quotations, and collections of quotations, floating around Internet, and that's it. Murphy's Law has books on it, in contrast. Delete. Uncle G 11:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G. According to Google, Silvermoon seems to be a city in World of Warcraft. What relation that has to this "law", if any, is unknown. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Silverymoon in Forgotten Realms. Good ol' name for anything that has to do with fantasy genre, I say. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Coming up with eponymous laws is hard because everyone's just about to say the same thing anyway." - me, right now. "And even if you do, it's still not what Wikipedia is for." - me, right now, just to continue. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with fool proof. It is certainly notable enough for inclusion, but there is no source to verify that it was 'Silvermoon' who came up with it. And I don't see something of this kind ever getting beyond a substub. Cynical 11:04, 12 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 - Yomangani^talk 11:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilcox-McCandlish law[edit]

Yet another unimportant Internet 'law'. Whilst the creator of this article and joint creator of the phrase, User:SMcCandlish, is a Wikipedian of good standing, this phrase has little notability. It gets 153 Ghits [14], mostly blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. For an internet fad, that's virtually nothing. There are no reliable, third party sources to be found on this phrase anywhere. There are also serious problems with original research and article ownership - the talk page is filled with blog-like musings on the 'law' and its 'corollaries'. Nydas 09:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Non-notable neologism. doktorb _words^deeds 10:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the article needs work, and the number of page hits is low, many of those that did pop up are encyclopedia-type sites, and one on the first page is actually a debate that invokes the Wildcox-McCandlish Law. It may not generate many page hits, but it is used.Alternator 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not referred to in any printed media, so far as I can tell. Doesn't meet WP:WEB, which says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." A NY Times article would certainly suffice, but cites in online forums don't seem sufficient. Especially with only 753 Google hits. EdJohnston 18:19, 15 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. Neologism. El_C 07:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyloon[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Ghits aren't relevant. Contested prod. MER-C 09:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "New English word" that happens to be the name of a corporation? Sure. Danny Lilithborne 10:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per fails WP:NOTABLE. Hello32020 10:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above doktorb _words^deeds 10:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advert. QuiteUnusual 11:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "To tyloon" - perhaps it means, "to shamelessly promote"? Out!!! --Brianyoumans 11:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Revise Please allow the chance to edit. Apologies for the self-promotion. Will adhere to all regulations and suggestions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.206.22 (talk • contribs)
• Delete non notable neologism and non notable company/trademark. Although the company claims (xinhua article) that the search engine is the first ever capable of simultaneous multi-lingual searches, it's still a startup which has not yet established itself. Ohconfucius 03:27, 13 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Queensland Labor Club[edit]

Unencyclopedic unsourced, shameless self promotion unable to be verified or referenced, student sub prone to vandalism NCM 10:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for a lack of notability outside of UQ itself. The nominator appears (inasmuch as I've tracked the history here) to feel that some comments made about her during her time on the executive of the club were offensive, which presumably explains the mention of "vandalism", which doesn't seem particularly rife in the article history. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having more of an acquaintance with the facts of the situation, which I don't really want to go into here, suffice it to say that that's not completely right. But that's neither here or there as far as deleting the article goes. Slac speak up! 03:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BigHaz. MER-C 10:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BigHaz. Hello32020 10:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 13:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. --Roisterer 13:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A student organization at a single institution is usually non-notable. --Metropolitan90 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non-notable student club. - Longhair\^talk 01:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Slac speak up! 02:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is one reference to the club namely in relation to a vote-rorting claim in 1986 which may have involved former Australian Democrat senator John Cherry. A Google News Archive search shows that Mike Kaiser was once a member but no other mentions. [15]. However, it would need more evidence than this of its importance in Queensland labor politics than this to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything sourced to University of Queensland. (Grumble. Isn't it obvious?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. If they had some former members who had gone onto greater things, then perhaps. --Michael Johnson 01:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kaiser went on to more controversial things (I'm rather surprised there's no article on him, in fact, it's an oversight which is on my "things to help with" list), but I'm not sure even that amounts to notability for the club. Realistically, I think it's only outfits like Cambridge Footlights which are almost an assembly line of notable alumni which move beyond the "university club/society" heading and become worthwhile inclusions here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there appear to be a number of other "unencyclopedic unsourced, shameless self promotions" in Category:Australian student societies--Grahamec 14:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (bandwagon vote) Lankiveil 00:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CDSA7 and WP:ORG. The University may be able to claim a notable alumnus, this club cannot, as no notability is asserted. Ohconfucius

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mueller (telecommunications)[edit]

Non-notable business exec. Previous attempt to delete opposed with message to take it to afd. Brianyoumans 10:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 11:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I created this article under the impression of notoriety. If he does not classify, please remove. Binarypower 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:35, 9 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Northwest Herpetological Society[edit]

Was on Speedy, put on AfD instead abakharev 11:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A serious and well-intended article, but I agree that the organization doesn't seem very notable. --Brianyoumans 11:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable or not. Isn't the purpose of wikipedia to be able to find information about just about anything?

I think it's a grave mistake to start deleting valuble resources like this simply cause they aren't in the front page of the newspaper. It's a extremly well written article that offers up excellent information about this group. Had I not chanced upon it be looking for law regarding herp breeding, I would have not known of it's existance.

Thanks to wikipedia, I was able to find this group, and now I will be able to join them. I might not have found them otherwise.

• Delete A nice enough group, but wikipedia is not meant to include absolutely everything under the sun. Nothing notably enough to keep. Icelight 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:36, 9 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 Merged to Red Button (Digital Television) - Yomangani^talk 11:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press red[edit]

I really don't think this button is worthy of an article. The article is unsourced where it needs to be, doesn't actually say anything about why the red button deserves an article, and has no technical information. The only real content says that television networks sometimes tell viewers that the red button on their remote controls does something. jd || talk || 11:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable content/article doktorb _words^deeds 11:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the article, merge. Uncle G 11:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the article. QuiteUnusual 13:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Big red button? No, delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, incoherent semi-nonsense, no sources. Sandstein 08:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (merge). was worthy in that it made me laugh. funs over now, as article. Widefox 02:43, 15 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.