Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leadingbrand (talk | contribs) at 23:19, 17 June 2006 (Holy Trinity (Baseball)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< June 16 >

Purge server cache

June 17

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Appleton

Non-noteable FlareNUKE 22:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. At one level this is a cop-out decision, but I have not based it purely on the fact that we have many and strong voices on both sides. There's more to it than that. The issue here is whether a new article should be split off from the existing article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) (I'll call this "the main article"). On one side, it is argued that the main article has become too long and is imbalanced by a very long section relating to criticisms and responses. The editorial strategy is to move this material to a new article, with a much briefer account retained in the main article and a link to the new one. On the other side, it is claimed that the relevant material should be kept in the main article for completeness and ease of access, and that any new article will thus be an unnecessary duplication. Those who oppose the new article, or at least some of them, also say that the editorial strategy of splitting off a new article is actually a bad-faith attempt to make criticisms of Randian Objectivism less prominent on Wikipedia. I am not prepared to draw the inference that anyone is acting in bad faith, though it is clear that some people are quick to assume bad faith in others. It seems to me that either editorial strategy could work and that neither has a complete consensus. However, it can certainly be said that the splitting action has not been taken against any consensus on the talk page of the main article. It was approved by a majority of people discussing it there. I am not prepared to draw the inference from the material available at an AfD that there was an actual consensus to split the articles but nor am I prepared to conclude that the majority view in favour of doing so was a bad-faith attempt by an unprincipled group to railroad a principled minority. I recommend that before any further AfD, which is likely to be just as inconclusive, all involved in the underlying dispute should seek mediation of it as soon as reasonably possible. I also note that the issues are complex and that all involved in the mediation should understand that it will take time and be difficult. Nonetheless, it is the only sensible course of action that I can see. I am not a mediator, but I am prepared to assist informally in any way I can. I have some familiarity with Rand's work, know a lot about legal and political philosophy, and am neither attracted by Rand's ideas nor especially hostile to them. However, I'm sort of on a wikibreak right now, and will be physically away from my computer for most of the next two to three weeks. In that time, the parties should be able to find a competent mediator. I'll see if there's anything I can do when I get back. Metamagician3000 01:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Objectivism

This article is a POV fork from Objectivism (Ayn Rand), which was created against consensus. Historically, the last time the criticism was removed from the main article into a fork, the result was that the main was whitewashed while the fork was eventually deleted, with the net effect of censoring the main. This is yet another effort, as demonstrated by the uniform support given by those who are fans of Rand and the uniform protest by everyone else Al 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note A survey was taken in Talk:Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) under "Survey: Move Criticism section to its own article." The result of the survey was 6 to 2 (a 2/3 majority), in favor of creating this article for the purpose of cutting that section down to a summary. RJII 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it was a biased survey. Only Randists voted in favor, and non-Randists opposed it. There was nothing close to consensus. -- LGagnon 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • False. I voted in favor and I'm not a "Randist" or "Objectivist." Don't mislead the voters. RJII 03:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • RJII, I'm not sure why you bother. Many, many people have told him, over and over again, that they're not Objectivists (or "Randists"). He knows this already, and still he asserts, again and again, that everyone who disagrees with his edits is a "Randist". This can only be explained by a willful desire to smear others or misrepresent their views. Reminding him again isn't likely to change anything. I want all admins seeing this to take note of Alienus's history of doing this. MrVoluntarist 03:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it's not for him. I'm sure he knows that I'm not an Objectivist. I just don't want the voters to continue to be manipulated by the dishonesty from Al and him. RJII 03:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • With all due respect, I do not believe RJII claims about his Objectivist status. His edits speak louder than his words. He is either an Objectivist outright or a fellow traveler whose views are not meaningfully different from those of Objectivists. Good faith does not trump godo sense. Al 04:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've been curious about the philosophy, because people seem to get really uptight about it, and have purchased some books to read (now that I have some free time (since the completion of the RJII Project)). In my opinion, the Objectivists or whoever else is responsible for the horrid article haven't represented that philosophy in a coherent or understandable manner, so I'm reading about it and editing the article myself to reflect the explanations of the philosophy that I'm reading. That doesn't make me an Objectivist. Get over your Randophobia. RJII 04:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. For the reasons stated above. I want to mention two more things. First, there was already a vote to sniff out a possible consensus to create this article. What we found was a lack of consensus, because all the Randists voted to hide the criticism in a new article, but noboody else agreed with them. Despite this lack, Crazynas made the error of copying and pasting to create this article. In short, it should never have existed. The second thing I want to mention is that there has been a recent influx of pro-Rand sock puppets, so I expect them to come here and stack the vote. Al 01:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First I would remind Alienus that AfD is not a vote. Second, consensus was reached, with six editors agreeing to the move and two disenting, Alienus tried to improperly close the staw poll after less then two hours after it was put up. Crazynas 01:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sigh. The consensus-seeking straw poll was not a vote, either, but an attempt to determine whether a genuine consensus existed. The result is that no such consensus was found. Putting aside the issue of sock puppets for a moment, the fact is that there are two factions -- the Randists and everyone else -- and there was absolutely no overlap between the votes of these two groups. (This remains the case thus far on the AFD). There was no consensus to create this page and no hope of ever gaining such a consensus, which is why I declared the effort futile. Al 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • mmmmmm that doesn't change the fact that you declared the straw poll closed in less then two hours, when it normally takes days (or weeks) before it is determined that consensus is reached(or not). I agree that consensus hasn't been reached in that straw poll, however it dosn't require consensus to create an article. Note that it wasn't a Randist that nominated this artice for AfD, nor was it a POV fork (as you claim), it is adminstrative, and that is all. Crazynas 01:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Duh. It was immediately obvious that the poll would not result in a true consensus. Creating an article doesn't require a consensus, but forking one does, and the sole purpose of this article is to be a fork. Since there was no consensus for forking, this article has no reason to exist. Of course, you'd like to pretend that we need a consensus to delete, but that's not true in this case: we need a consensus in order to keep. Oh, and as for it being administrative, the fact that all Randists voted pro and the rest of us voted con shows that this is not the case. Remember: WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and the presence of sock puppets dispell any hint of good faith. Now, let's shut up and let other people weigh in. Al 01:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Consensus says that what happened there was not a consensus. What happened was that one side gathered their numbers together to outnumber the opposition and create a tyranny of the majority. Nobody agreed on the fork except for the Randists. -- LGagnon 02:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I am the creator of this article, I should explain my reasoning. The current article is copied from Objectivism (Ayn Rand)#Responses to Objectivist philosophy. This is not a POV fork, rather it is a stylistic change, and it is not without precedent, there are four other sub articles Objectivist metaphysics Objectivist epistemology Objectivist ethics and Libertarianism and Objectivism. Each of these articles is summarized in Objectivism (Ayn Rand). I created this article because the responses section was overpowering the article, 48% by wordcount, and is generally unweldy. Although the section in Objectivism (Ayn Rand) has not been trimed down, and will not be until this AfD is resolved, with this article to provide in depth analysis of the responses, an approprate summary could be created on Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Crazynas 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. As mentioned by Al, this is a retread of a previous problem. The last attempt to create a separate critism article was used to delete researched info from the main article. This seems to only be a second attempt to do so. Please note that only fans of Ayn Rand are in favor of this fork, while those who oppose it are either neutral editors or others who are not fans of Rand. -- LGagnon 00:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep it all in one place, please. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep All the bickering over whether Objectivism is a "cult," over who is a "randroid" or not is distracting editors from working on improving the main article portion of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). If we can keep all this stuff in its own article, then I think people will be better frame of mind to work on improving that article. Also, it's way too large in comparison to the rest of the article. The focus of the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should be the philosophy itself. Right now that article is horrible at explaining Objectivism. Criticism is meaningless if no one can understand the philosophy in the first place. Let those who want to argue over whether Objectivism is a cult have this article to themselves. RJII 03:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a note here: So far, not a single person outside of the Randist faction has endorsed keeping this article. This is a hint as to its purpose. Al 04:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Textbook POV fork. I'd say merge back into Objectivism, but this info is already there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this article gets deleted then for balance Objectivist metaphysics Objectivist ethics Objectivist epistemology will need to be merged back into the main article for balance, I trust Alienus, as an admin will do this because of the Pov issues involved. Crazynas 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh. That doesn't actually follow. See, "Responses to Objectivism" is intended as a place to hide away criticism, since so many of the responses are critical. In contrast, the child articles for the Objectivist take on various general categories of philosophy are much more legitimate. There is no hidden agenda behind their existence, nor is their existence inherently POV. Also, who said I was an admin? Al 05:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Accusing people of having a hidden agenda without absolute proof isn't a good way to gain supporters. I haven't even been following this until today, but comments like yours make me want to support the other side. jgp (T|C) 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding you being an admin, I thought you did... at some point on the talk page, if you didn't and/or your not, sorry. Well I did not create this article to hide away criticism, I created it because of balance go look at the main article, half of the entire thing is criticism, although I do agree that there should be a section about responses, criticism or not, I don't think that it should domanate the article. Although I agree with many of the points of Objectivism, that's not why I'm here, I'm here to make a better encyclopedia, and I work on this article because I know somthing about it. Whatever you think, I'm not pushing Pov like you said at one point, one dosn't have to be netural about an article to edit neturally, and thats what I'm trying to do. Crazynas 06:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Must have been some sort of misunderstanding. In any case, regardless of your intent, the others who have signed on to the bandwagon have hearts that are not quite so pure. You see, the reason the main article has so much criticism is that there's so much out there. Balance isn't about forcing a specific ratio of positive to negative, but rather to accurately match what's happening in the real world. Consider that creationism is likely to be heavy on criticsm, not because the article is POV, but because the truth is that there's much to criticize. The appropriate rule is the one about "undue weight". Al 06:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per LGagnon. Tevildo 09:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Not only is the main Objectivism (Ayn Rand) too long, it is being manipulated by Randophobes like LGagnon to reflect their irrational hatred for Ayn Rand and for Objectivism in complete violation of NPOV. The Fading Light 11:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete of this POV fork per A Man in Black and LGagnon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge but fix terribly written article. The Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article is currently 45k, which is longer than a Wikipedia article should be. Either that article needs to be edited down aggressively, or it should be broken out into separate articles. I don't particularly care which. The two comments I'd make about "Responses to Objectivism" are as follows: (1) The name is bad. (2) It's poorly written and unsourced. Nandesuka 13:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Nandesuka. Small world. Weren't you just personally attacking me a minute ago? Must be a coincidence, not wikistalking. After all admins always follow the rules they're sworn to enforce, right? Al 15:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quoting the definition of wikistalking, "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.". There was nothing disruptive, insulting, or otherwise venomous in Nandesuka's comments. jgp (T|C) 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, the disruption comes from the fact that he is the ONLY non-Objectivist to join the Objectivists against me. This has a disruptive effect, however it might have been intended. Al 01:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Other than Nandesuka, who just so happens to have a history with me and no interest in Objectivism, every vote to keep has thus far come from acknowledged and obvious Objectivists. This once again confirms the "POV fork" theory. Al 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this article intended to be along the same lines as articles like Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Islam? If so, since there are so many other sub-articles on Objectivism already, I could see this article following the same pattern that is used to handle criticism in other articles - that is, a brief outline of the major disputes, with a link to the main article. But if that's the case, it should be located at Criticism of Objectivism, not Responses to Objectivism, IMO. -- Vary | Talk 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, it is not being used for the same purpose. This is a retread of a previous situation in which the Rand supporters used a criticism article as a method of deleting cited information criticizing their ideology. The purpose here is POV censorship, not legit forking. -- LGagnon 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). I don't see a need for a separate article. However, given the size of Objectivism (Ayn Rand), some breakup might be inevitable, which is why this is a weak merge. Note that this article is not a POV fork. A POV fork is when each point of view is given its own article. This article is titled Responses to Objectivism, not Negative Responses to Objectivism or Positive Responses to Objectivism. jgp (T|C) 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I'm changing my vote. Two reasons: one, as per Nandesuka, Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is large enough that it should be split up; two, the arguments to delete this article are paper-thin, and primarily consist of incivility and personal attacks against people who want to keep it. jgp (T|C) 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right about the title, but not the content. Due to the overwhelming negative responses, any article listing all responses is going to contain primarily criticism. Isolated into a fork, it becomes POV. Only when taken as a balanced part of the main article can it be NPOV. Al 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia isn't required to give equal attention to minority opinions. If Wikipedia gives proper proportionate (not equal) attention to each side, there are no POV problems. If the overwhelming opinion of Objectivism is negative, so be it. jgp (T|C) 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. Certainly, if the majority is negative, then we should not give undo weight to those who are positive. Having said that, the net effect of moving the responses to Objectivism here is to purge the main article of negativity, thus destroying the neutrality of it. Does this clarification help you understand my view? Al 00:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The material here, from what I have read, is thoughtful. Sure, some of the "bite" should be taken out of the intro, and editors should take pains to make their comments cited. But the deletion of this page would be tantamount to intellectual suppression. (However, the points made by Vary re: the name of this article are very good, and which I support.)
Also, merging would be unwise, for two reasons: first, it's not unheard of to have separate pages for critiques, especially when (as with this case) there are so many ways to critique that it's worth its own article; second, (and less seriously), fanatics on the Objectivism page will likely make a critical article there impossible (although this consideration has no merits in itself, it might save critical errors from wasting their time). In any case, a link from the Objectivism page could and should be made to this one. Lucidish 18:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote change to Strong delete, due to violations of process noted below by Al. Lucidish 01:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Al is the one trying to get the article deleted. RJII 16:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that you should not split an article when there is no consensus. That's a violation of process. Lucidish 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the splitting of an article. This is the creation of a new article. Whether they want to delete the information in another article is another issue. RJII 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, elimination of content from one article to be placed in new one is called "splitting". They are not separate issues. Lucidish 17:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But, it hasn't been eliminated. You say there should be no "splitting" without a consensus, but HERE is where it's determined whether there is a consensus to allow this article to continue existing. You're vote counts as part of the consensus or lack thereof. Voting because you think there's no consensus makes no sense. Also, note that a survey was taken on the Objectivism discussion page whether to create this article for the purpose of cutting that very large section down to a paragraph or two with a link to here. The vote was 6 to create, and 2 not to create (Alenius and Gagnon). I would say that's a consensus. What Al is saying below is innaccurate. See for yourself in Talk:Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) under "Survey: Move Criticism section to its own article." It's unfortunate that he has mislead you. Please reconsider your vote, given this information. RJII 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstoond me. This article is an anomaly that had no justification for existence unless and until a consensus had been reached on the Objectivism page to split it. Although there was a vote, and a majority, no consensus was reached. Rather, a separate page was created -- as it turns out, redundantly. Hence, the page is both redundant, and is a violation of process. It would indeed be irrational for me to vote (here or elsewhere) on something if it were because of hearing the way the wind is blowing. However, again, the item which changed my mind had to do with the other wiki, and the violations of process involved in it.
In my opinion, the 6-2 vote indicates a lack of consensus, not by the numbers, but by the existence of bad faith editing. Unfortunately, the bad faith influence seems to be on both sides, i.e., from LGagnon and The Fading Light. The fact that the arguments are dominated by these remarks, and that reasonable argument and discussion was explicitly truncated at the outset ("Please just say "Agree" or "Disagree" with an optional short explanation. Any further attempts to disrupt this vote will be reported as vandalism"), are not what I'd call "consensus-building". Lucidish 01:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you think that the "Please just say "Agree" or "Disagree" with an optional short explanation. Any further attempts to disrupt this vote will be reported as vandalism" was disruptive? Wow. Ok, you just don't know the events. That was just placed there for two reasons. One was to keep the voting in one place, because people were arguing in between the votes from each individual (A space was placed below for discussion). But the second reason was Alenius's attempt to disrupt the survey. He tried to end the vote less than 2 hours into it (only two people had voted so far). He crossed out the survey question by drawing a line through it and declared the survey over. I reverted it, and he did it again. ([1] [2]) That's that "vandalism" that it was referring to. Admittedly, it's a bit complicated to follow --a mess. But hopefully, you can see what's going on now. The bad faith is coming from Gagnon and Alenius who is trying to delete his article, after being unsuccessful at sabatoging the survey. And, he's been misleading people here about what's going on. RJII 01:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that sentence was "disruptive"; rather, it's abortive. Warding off dialogue makes consensus-building all the more impossible. Anyway, as you indicate, there seems to be bad faith on all sides. I'm not especially impressed with any of this. Perhaps an RfA on the Objectivism page will be more productive. Lucidish 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you understand the history of Rand's followers on Wikipedia. They did this before to delete cited info. First, a criticism article was created, and then they forced it into deletion to get rid of the criticism permanently. This seems to be a second try at that. If we keep it in the main article, they won't delete the article. This is absolutely needed to avoid their censorship tactics. -- LGagnon 15:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you point us to the diffs of the earlier AfD? More to the point, if something silly like that does happen again, we just make sure the material is appropriately merged back in to the main article. Nandesuka 16:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main point was that there are so many objections to Rand's philosophy that they deserve their own article. Re: deletion, I'm quite plainly against that, for the same reasons you seem to have. I severely doubt there is any "consensus" here, so the article will not be deleted. Lucidish 16:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete'. POV fork. If the pro-Rand faction are as rational as they pretend to be, they'd see the criticism section belongs in the main article. -- GWO
  • Comment. A point of order. Given that the issue of creating this article was brought up on the parent article's talk page and failed to gain a genuine consensus, the burden is on those who support its existence to explain why it should continue to exist. In other words, we don't need a consensus to delete, we need a consensus to keep, and no such consensus exists.
If this article is allowed to remain, the POV of the main article will be hugely shifted pro-Rand, which is why the Randists uniformly support keeping this article. It is also why this article must go. Al 00:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, Nandesuka is the only non-Objectivist to offer even tepid support for keeping the article, and even he says "or merge" and admits that, as a stand-alone article, it's terrible. I think that this makes it entirely fair to say that the only people who support the existence of the article are Objectivists, which further supports my concerns that the goal of doing so is to shift the POV strongly towards Objectivism by isolating (and later destroying) all criticism, just like last time.
I also want to clarify one thing: while the creation of this page was out of order, I don't believe that Crazynas acted in bad faith. However, he did act in error and that error has since been coopted by the other Objectivists to further their stated goal of making Rand look as good as possible. Crazynas was just trying to be bold, and while I respect his intent, I cannot abide by the results.
Finally, I want to add that it is entirely reasonable to be concerned about article size, and I support fair measures to trim the main article down. It's just that I don't see this as a fair measure. Once this matter is settled, I will be glad to work with other editors to see how we can break out portions of the main to shrink it down, without shifting away from neutrality. Thank you. Al 01:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true that "Nandesuki is the only non-Objectivist." I'm not an Objectivist. RJII 03:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are as much of a Randist as Bill O'Reilly is a Republican. And your argument against this is as see-through as his. -- LGagnon 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than refuting this myself, I will direct anyone who doubts my claim to look at your history. Thank you for understanding. Al 03:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks for you calling me a liar. RJII 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable people can honestly disagree on such matters of classification. Please assume good faith and do not take everything as a personal attack. Thank you. Al 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What Alienius is saying above is false. There was a vote on the Objectivism talk page. The result was 6 to 2 to do this. Only 2 voted against. Those two were Alenius and Gagnon. 6 to 2 represents a conensus. It's not just a majority, but 2/3 in favor. See for yourself in Talk:Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) under "Survey: Move Criticism section to its own article." RJII 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The poll to determine whether Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should be split failed to gain consensus because it was uniformly supported by Objectivists and uniformly objected to by by non-Objectivists. The fact that people voted right down the party lines, so to speak, showed that there was no meeting of minds. It's clear that any temporary majority was no more than an artifact of greater participation by Objectivists, which is a fine example of why voting is evil. Moreover, speaking of fractions is meaningless when dealing with small numbers.
Fundamentally, we are not discussing whether a new article should be kept. This is not a new article; it is a fork of an old one. Moreover, it has been seen by almost all non-Objectivists as a POV fork, which is good reason in itself to remove it. Not a single non-Objectivist has fully endorsed keeping this article, while all Objectivists have done so. Remember, consensus can never trump the rules and cannot exist when there is strong factionalism.
Consider the parallel case of the cult labels. Multiple reliable sources have been put forth to show that there are articles and even books which call Objectivism a cult and Rand a cult leader. True or false, it's verifiable and notable, so we should report it. Once again, however, all of the Randists oppose this and all of the non-Randists support it. The result: party-line voting and no consensus to remove the tags.
We have to get past this partisanship if we're going to get anywhere. The first step is to burn this POV fork to the ground and salt the earth. The second is to require that everyone vote based on the rules, not merely what result they'd like. Otherwise, we will never achieve anything close to neutrality. Al 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
False again. I voted to create this article, and I'm not an Objectivist. You keep misleading people here. You've told them that there was no consensus to create this article, but there was. Then you tell them that the only people that voted in favor are Objectivists. But, that's not true either. RJII 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. You just act like one in every way. It's a bizarre concidence. Al 18:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look up "Randophobia." Everyone that opposes you is not an Objectivist. There is no particular way that Objectivists "act" that is different than any other person. Everyone, including you, is human. RJII 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more with this comment. I'm not an objectivist, and the uncivil actions of the Randophobic faction here makes me ill (gotta love personal attacks like "I have not disenfrachised anyone; you Randists have" coming from LGagnon). All I've noticed from this discussion is that people who have a passionate, irrational hatred of objectivism are trying to get this article deleted. jgp (T|C) 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. So, how long have you been a Libertarian? Al 19:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a Libertarian. I do not like your tone, and you have just proved to me that you are trolling. jgp (T|C) 19:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your user page identifies you as having views that I cannot distinguish from Libertarianism. Perhaps you're a fellow traveler, then. Al 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're really confused, then. Being a libertarian doesn't make someone an Objectivist (I'm sure the vast majority are not). But, I don't identify as a libertarian either. I'm simply a person who believes in maximizing individual rights. Believing in individual rights does not make one an Objectivist. You have a tendency to associate everyone who seems to share any similarity with any ideas found in Objectivism to be an Objectivist. But, that's not the case. Support for individual liberty has been around long before Objectivism: ""rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." -Thomas Jefferson. Everyone who supports individual liberty is not an Objectivist. RJII 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I follow my own political beliefs. I have some views in common with Libertarianism, but sharing some views doesn't make me one (you want an example of where I disagree? I support the idea of a public education system). I'll also echo RJII's statements about believing in maximising individual rights. jgp (T|C) 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you do follow your own political beliefs. However, they happen to sound pretty much like libertarianism. After all, "maximizing individual rights' is the rallying call of the libertarian. Not all libertarians are Objectivists, but all Objectivists are (despite their dislike for the term) libertarians, and the two have many issues that they agree entirely on. Rand herself was highly important in the formation of the American libertarian movement, again despite her hatred for it. The bottom line is that the only people supporting this fork are Objectivists, closet Objectivists, libertarians and fellow travelers. Or, for short, Objectivists. Al 21:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You left out classical liberals. They would be Objectivists according to your definition as well. Get real. RJII 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got any more square pegs you want to whittle into your round hole? So far, you've managed to create a category to shove all the keep voters into, and then lie in order to stuff us into it. You are being intellectually dishonest, insulting, and a troll. Saying that everyone who votes keep is some flavour of Objectivist just so you can further your own rampant Randophobic agenda makes me physically ill, and shows that you should be banned from Wikipedia. jgp (T|C) 05:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear that the supporters are either outright Objectivists or at least fellow travelers. Al 05:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork, no question. Aguerriero (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- I find it odd that the editor proposing the deletion did so in part on the ground that it may be "eventually deleted"! We're supposed to delete it now out of a fear that otherwise it might be deleted later? Unfortunately, no better reasoning than this has been offered yet on the delete side. Furthermore, I'm not an objectivist, never have been, and I have no history with "Al," whoever he is exactly, so just by casting this vote I ruin a couple other of his 'arguments'. --Christofurio 02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will be eventually deleted by the same people who created it, but only after they've moved all the criticism out of the main article and into this POV fork. On a side note, I wasn't aware that anarchists and minarchists were radically different. Last I checked, they differed only in degree and rhetoric. Al 05:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have absolute proof to back up those accusations? Because, you know, falsely accusing people of having a hidden agenda is a Good Thing. jgp (T|C) 05:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a precedent; it has already happened with a previous attempt to create such an article. -- LGagnon 22:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So accept the continued existence of this article now, and then, when those O-word folk do try the second half of their alleged little scheme and ask that it be deleted, you and I will work side by side to demonstrate lack of consensus there, too. I'll now work to save this article from you, so you and I can work to save it from 'them' later. All in a day's work. Hand me my cape and tights. --Christofurio 23:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Al, You are still in the rather odd position of promoting a deletion to avoid a deletion. Anyway, your earlier statement was that only Objectivists opposed this Afd. Now that I've helped scotch that notion, you are saying that those who oppose fall into the much much broader category of "anarchists and minarchists". So Bakunin and Rothbard and Rand are all virtually the same, eh? Of course they are, because they all disagree with you, and only people who disagree with you, disagree with you. The world's most important tautology. My only interest in saving this article is the good of wikipedia. I think in this case a fork is the best way to produce two decent articles, rather than one perpetual battleground mishmash. What is still more obvious, though, is that you don't have a pro-delete consensus. --Christofurio 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to follow summary style appropriately. — goethean ॐ 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same reasons as Crazynas and Goethean. --GreedyCapitalist 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While, depending on the fate of the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, some of this information may need to be separated, it is inappropriate to remove all criticism from any article, particularly when the criticism is indisputably relevant to the topic of the article. iggytalk 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment note that the intention is not to remove all comments on Objectivism from the main article, it is to appropriately summarize it down. Crazynas 00:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering all the hostility from the Randists, there's no way we can "appropriately" summed it up. Randists are too quick to delete anything that goes against the cult's views, and claim things are "POV" or "unsourced" even when presented with sources. To reduce the section would only make it easier for such biased editing to happen. A summary is more likely to be attacked by Randists under the same accusations. -- LGagnon 00:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only hostility I've seen here comes from you and Alienus. And quit making accusations without proof. Honestly, anything politically charged is going to be likely to be attacked by POV-pushers. Anything. So, by your logic, we should just remove all content on Wikipedia that mentions a political movement. jgp (T|C) 00:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Crazynas. Common practice in splitting up large articles is to leave a short summary and a link to the main article on the subject's overview page. jgp (T|C) 00:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that having the responses (note that there are both positive and negative responses in this article) dominate O is the way to go. Crazynas 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article will need a LOT of work, but I think we can improve it dramatically LaszloWalrus 03:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Same reasons as Crazynas and Goethean.Xyz90009 04:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. per LGagnon. merge if the info is removed from the main article. Skyraider 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tre Sims

non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They use "gibberish" oh wait, no personal opinions here, sorry! --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primordial (company)

Advert for nn company / product. Author removed prod after a minor copyedit. Deizio talk 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, author / CEO has very helpfully posted some media links which demonstrate some local and industry press coverage... still very ad-like, but one to watch. Could be a WP:HEY in the making. Deizio talk 01:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. DS 20:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Steenstrup

Is this guy notable enough? RedRollerskate 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Xoloz. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sex Symbols

This page was previously (and erroneously, but in good faith) nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: "original research, potentially infinite, unencyclopedic, inherent npov problems, American bias, etc." While it's not exactly speedy criteria, it's a great reason to have it deleted via the consensus process. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Ryan

non-notable actress (fails WP:BIO): only relevent google hit seems to be a couple forums (and a hit at youtube) [4]. This article tries to piggy-back on the popularity of YouTube itself --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article revised please revote. --Mlle reisz


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G4 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'll Never Forget what You Did Last Summer) Naconkantari 04:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hooked: The Final Cut

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I can find no google references and no references under the list actors/producers/writers. Kershner 02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballibay

WP:NN This article does not assert the importance or significance of the topic. A music camp is not notable simply for being a music camp, it must have encyclopedic content to be included. Kershner 02:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of magic organizations

Barebones list, pointless with the existence of the category. Was Afd'd before, and hasn't been touched since. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 22:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey

Quoting from Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." This is exactly that. See Michael (disambiguation) and note that no list of people with that given name exists there. Kershner 03:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movicasts

As the merge proposal points out, this duplicates an existing article. However, there is no info here not already in the other article and a google search for movicast only gets 70 hits. The only place it is used as in the article are the article and its mirrors. The only reference given is a broken link. Given this, I believe a delete is more appropriate. Ace of Sevens 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rufio

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as it contained no context.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abyss of Chaos

I have no idea what this page is talking about. Perhaps it's nonsense? —Mets501 (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. —ERcheck @ 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Izzudin

Non-notable, vanity Nv8200p talk 04:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, after discounting the comments by the sockpuppet, and after carefully looking at each comment, I find the consensus, votes, and comments are stronger for deletion than for keeping the article. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George R. Binks

WP:FICT Character which appears in one comic book vaguely associated with Star Wars. John Nagle 04:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Part of the problem is that all the "Star Wars Tales #NN" articles have redlinks for each individual story in each comic. That needs to be cleaned up. --John Nagle 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is enough information about George R. Binks to create an entire article for him. He is just as significant as any other Star Wars character. None of the users calling for his merge or deletion have enough experience or knowledge with Star Wars to make a proper judgement on the degree of his significance. I have read Star Wars Tales 20 and I can attest that he is a very important and integral character to the Star Wars universe. Maybe he is not as evil and methodical as Darth Sidious, as wise and pure-hearted as Yoda, or as brash and strong willed as the young Luke Skywalker, but he is a character nonetheless and Star Wars fans recognize him. Leave discussion on George R. Binks to the fans. Bromyne 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)(user indefblocked as a sockpuppet of User:Maior. Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for your support, Bromyne. I was looking around for a good Star Wars character article to compare my article on George R. Binks to and I came across the entry for Yaddle. In all my 28 years as a Star Wars fan I have never come across someone who has as vigorously and valiantly been a fan of Yaddle. On the flip side, my friends and I regularly discuss George R. Binks. We have had discussion about just how he overcame the typical xenophobia most Gungans display and set out to sail the seas on the surface of Naboo. We have also discussed what it must be like to father a child like Jar Jar Binks. Was he initially proud of his young son and endeared by his goofy antics? How must he have felt when Jar Jar never grew out of these childish displays? He must have been crushed. All this debate has been sparked from a single story in Star Wars Tales, and there is still so much we do not know about Binks. How did he escape the island him, his wife, and his son were trapped on? How did he feel that his son was the first senatorial representative of the Gungans on Naboo? The emotional roller coaster that this character's life must have been not only should prevent this article from being deleted but should inspire hundreds of "Wiki-ites" to make this article into the best that it can be. If the article for Yaddle, a simple Whill who sat on the Jedi Council, garnishing around 4 seconds of total screen time, is allowed to stay, then the article about the man who fathered the character who was such a necessary catalyst in the events taking place throughout the history of the Star Wars universe including, but not limited to, leading Gungan troops into battle at Naboo and nominating Senator Palpatine for the role of Supreme Chancellor, must stay as well. Iodyne 20:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge with Raj Comics. Same result as for a bunch of similar pages. ImpuMozhi 00:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saudangi

Delete, as is this article does not meet WP:FICT. Not notable Vijrams 05:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney characters' names in various languages

Prod, deprodded by me, because of my previous experience with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages. Prod reason was "Not notable. Arbitrary criteria. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." I agree, and let me add to that: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is totally unverified, and the amount of individual separate verification it would need makes it arguably original research. Furthermore, we have the sidebar for all the relevant pages linking to wikis in other languages. Mangojuicetalk 04:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously, as the guy who put prod on this, I vote delete. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 04:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mango AdamBiswanger1 05:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm going to state a preference that maybe isn't Wiki-policy. I think this page could be quite useful and is about Diseny, something certainly notable. Rather than delete, I'd favor putting a {citation-needed}} tag on it. It really isn't original research but is a collection (still not yet in proper Wiki-form, I admit) of info from secondary sources. Am I going to get jumped on for this? Interlingua talk 05:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to Strong Keep I don't follow any of the arguments of the nominator. WP:V is about verifiability not verifiedness (is that a word?). I tried a few and had no problems verifying any of them. Also none of the entries are strictly dicdefs. I don't even see the need to tag it with a {citation-needed}} tag, since the info is not controversial and probably frequently patroled by international editors anyway. (See recurring What nonsense interjections which should probably be removed.) I think the list is too unwieldy and also believe that all lists should eventually be outsourced to Wikilistmania, but these are not AfD issues. ~ trialsanderrors 07:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With (until now) 237 editors contributing to the article, this is probably one of the most verified articles on Wikipedia. It is also quite useful for, say, a Finnish user, who wants to read up on her favourite character Pikku Apulainen. Just enter it in the search box and bingo. Without this list, the search would produce "No results found. For help on searching, please see Wikipedia:Searching." --LambiamTalk 07:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm desperately unimpressed by the assertion that this turgid mass of cruft "might be useful;" that's the usual last defense of the editor who lacks a genuine reason to keep, and somehow the ways this might be useful seldom are cited. I likewise see no reason to cater to the Finnish user who cannot operate her own language's Wikipedia. WP:NOT. RGTraynor 08:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and per RGTraynor. The arguments made for keep are distinctly desperate. "Just enter it in the search box and bingo." (Lambian). A Finnish user would be better served on the Finnish Wikipedia... looking at, oh I don't know, the Finnish Disney article. It's a horrible, cross-language Wiki mess of an article... and list-cruft - Motor (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not seeing any obvious violations of policy, all info is verifiable in principle. No rush to save space. David L Rattigan 10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per David L Rattigan Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 12:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mango; seems like a candidate for WP:BAI (do not write articles which are redundant due to existing categories or interwiki links). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor. --Shizane 13:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Motor. BoojiBoy 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor. Optichan 21:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless list, I mean how often is someone going to need much less be intrested in the chinese characters for Micky Mouse, it'd be intresting if the names were significantly different but alas that doesn't seem to be the case. Deathawk 19:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many people above. Listcruft, ahoy! -- Kicking222 23:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not everybody who speaks English know the original names of the Disney characters, I certainly don't know half of them. Disney character names are usually regionalized as this list shows. I usually "vote" delete on lists, but there's no good way to preserve this information other than a list. -- Eivindt@c 23:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF?, er... Keep This page is odd, but I have seen some disney cartoons in other languages (was it german or french?). Anyway, somebody will find it useful. MichaelBillington 01:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valuable reference tool. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference work. Fg2 13:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial. Cute, but trivial. This belongs on a Tripod page somewhere, not in an encyclopedia. --FuriousFreddy 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If any are notable, they can go on the relevant character pages. Ace of Sevens 17:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep some Wikipedias do not have all of these characters listed, this lists makes it easier to find the names of the characters in another language. --84.184.95.151 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak Delete Hard to justify its existence because it's a messy and somewhat difficult to maintain way to construct the list; the comics have been published in many languages and there's hundreds of notable and even non-marginal minor characters. Perhaps add these to the articles about the characters, but even in them, interwiki links are somewhat more helpful... If I want to know what "Pikku Apulainen" is in English, I type Ctrl-T, Ctrl-L, wpfi Pikku Apulainen, Return and follow the interwiki links, and bang! =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And what do you do for "Varyemez Amca"? --LambiamTalk 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Use google? Let me counter: what do you do if you want information on Ballibay? Obviously, any deletion implies a loss of information that, if you were specifically looking for it, would be useful. We need to answer the question of whether this kind of information belongs in an encyclopedia, not whether it would serve someone. Mangojuicetalk 15:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the argument that when information is deleted from Wikipedia you can get the information by doing research outside Wikipedia does not work at all in favour of deletion. The number of editors that the page has attracted shows this topic is notable enough. The criteria for inclusion are quite obviously not arbitrary, and the information collected here is not at all indiscriminate. So why should this not belong in an encyclopedia? I've said before that I can't see verifiability as an issue. Finally, I do maintain that the usefulness of the information is an argument. --LambiamTalk 07:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the line in your opinion, then? If we have this, should we have, for every fictional universe, a "list of names in other languages" for that universe? What about places? Or real people? Or ordinary nouns, verbs... this starts to sound like a translation dictionary very quickly: do you think all of this is okay? If not, where do we draw the line? I think the place to draw the line is where we can write ABOUT the translation and actually say something; to me, that's the equivalent standard that differentiates a dictionary definition from an encyclopedia entry. Most of these, there's nothing to say. Mangojuicetalk 13:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although many interesting things can be said about the translations, that would mostly be OR. Among the "recognized" main purposes of lists (see Wikipedia:List guideline) are information and navigation, both of which are provided by the present list. It's nice if you can create an annotated list (see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)), but this is only one of several recognized formats, and the fact is that the majority of present non-controversial lists, like List of Maine rivers or List of U.S. Army installations in Kuwait, is not annotated. Should there be a list of names in other languages for the fictional universe of, say, Pride and Prejudice? Well, the fact is that Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy are Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy also in translations in other languages. So, no. This is the case for almost all notable fictional universes. But there are a few exceptions. I'm also in favour of having a list of of Harry Potter characters in other languages, so that a reader can find who Severus Rogue is, or Petter Pittelpytt. Such lists are not going to overwhelm Wikipedia, and unlike for names of nouns etcetera it is not something you learn when learning English as a second language and not something you can look up in a dictionary. I'm also in favour of keeping Names of European cities in different languages and similar articles, and I've tried to explain on the deletion page that the argument that there are hundreds of cities and hundreds of languages is specious. --LambiamTalk 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. I voted keep and cleanup in the last AfD, and might have voted again this time, but the consensus to delete is pretty clear. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages

I have several reasons for nominating this.

  1. First of all, most Harry Potter books have articles in many other wikis, so the titles of the books in other languages can be obtained there.
  2. Second, I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of having articles like this -- WP isn't babelfish.com and it isn't a dictionary either; I think this is unencyclopedic... I know Harry Potter is popular, but if we keep this it's a slippery slope. Occasionally, the translation of a book title is interesting, for instance, the German title of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is translated as "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Fear", but (1) the article isn't about the interesting alternate titles, and (2) in any case, we have a good article on the translation of Harry Potter: Harry Potter in translation.
  3. Third, this article suffers from a complete lack of sources; it's been a month since I added the {{unreferenced}} tag, and 3 since the first nomination, and no referencing has happened, nor any cleaning up.
  4. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, if the article were properly sourced, it would look suspiciously like original research, I think: unless someone ELSE has ever written an article or book about the translation of Harry Potter, we're going to be using entirely primary sources.

For all these reasons, delete. Mangojuicetalk 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nominations VfD, 1st AfD

  • Comment Per WP:NOR, there is nothing against creating an article based on primary sources per se. What it talks about that's not allowed is a Wikipedia article actually being a primary source. Of course, creating an article based entirely on primary sources causes some OR problems with some people. Morgan Wick 04:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is true, and a good point. WP:OR says that in the case of an article that makes only descriptive claims that can be easily verified by any adult without specialist knowledge, an article can be based only on primary sources, implying that otherwise, articles should not be based only on primary sources. I think the other-language titles are probably okay, but most of the interest in the article is the translation back to English, and I certainly don't think, for instance, that someone could verify the back-translation of, say, a Chinese book title without knowing at least some Chinese. Mangojuicetalk 04:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images of chronic wounds

No text, page made because some images were deemed too strong for main article. This is not a valid reason since Wikipedia is not censored. Also other ways around this are presently available, see autofellatio Joelito (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advomentary

Then delete it why don't you! It will be back someday whether you like it or not. Complete Neologism - zero Google hits not counting Wikipedia. This is not the place for made up crap. Save that for the Advomentaries. Rklawton 05:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With zero Google hits, I wouldn't even call this one "popular." Rklawton 07:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is obviously an attempt at the same sort of thing as docudrama, edutainment, etc. Which are all, though better-established, still obnoxious. Opabinia regalis 07:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheeyat

Unsourced dicdef, should be deleted or transwikied. Speedy filed in March, deprodded without comment or explanation. RGTraynor 05:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft Secret Missions

This is nothing but a blow-by-blow plot summary of a handful of Blizzard-made downloadable Starcraft missions. It's absolutely excessive plot summary (failing WP:FICT miserably), and has no merge target I can think of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - wikipedia has several other well-detailed plot summaries of fictional material, including the other StarCraft storyline articles and the summaries for novels such as the Dune series. As mentioned above, this article already survived an "article for deletion" debate. The bonus missions add greatly to the StarCraft lore. Kimera757 03:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Little (attorney)

Non-notable attorney, created originally by User:Boblittle, indicating vanity. I think only especially notable lawyers deserve articles. AdamBiswanger1 05:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appadurai Muttulingam

This article was recreated after it was deleted on a previous AFD. Not notable. Has a bunch books that never sold. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Please note that less than 1 % Tamil literature is available in net and because many of those are not with Unicode, that may not come up in Google Search. As an author of books which are available in Amazon, this article has to be kept Doctor Bruno 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only 77 Google hits, many referring to this article. Seems to be vanity or promotional. The results of the previous AfD apply. AdamBiswanger1 06:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AdamBiswanger1. Kalani [talk] 06:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is it necessary for books to sell in order for someone to count as notable enough for Wikpedia? The charge in the archived articles that the book on Macros was from a subsidy press diminished the claims of notability for that volume, but what about the others? Standards for professors is that their publication exceeds that of the average prof at a university, right? There's no real requirement that people read the books they publish. This man isn't a prof, but he seems to have published a number of books in Tamil fiction. I'm not familiar with either him or his books and haven't read any Tamil literature in 15 years, but just judging in terms of the article, it seems NPOV and sufficiently notable for a keep. Interlingua talk 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete mindful of systemic bias, maybe the lack of google hits is due to searching using the Roman alphabet and/or searching with one of several possible spellings. But the fact that it was originally a vanity article and the list of publications is shaky (marginal vanity, little readership) makes me lean toward delete. Change to a keep if someone familiar with Tamil literature thinks this guy is notable. Opabinia regalis 07:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "அ.முத்துலிங்கம்" gives 39 unique Google hits, which may not seem a lot, but Tamil is not strongly represented on the Internet. The article should be merged with A. Muttulingam (which I don't think was created as a vanity article); this may actually be the more common search term. There is also the spelling "A. Muthulingam", as he was referred to in the section "Famous contemporary authors" in the article Tamil literature until the whole section was deleted in this edit: [7]; see also e.g. the last entry on this page: [8]. And finally, you can also spell "A. Muththulingam". --LambiamTalk 08:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Books seem verifiable e.g. [9], [10]. Probable systemic bias issues here. And no, I can't spell his name but Tamil-speakers may be able to. Dlyons493 Talk 09:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that this article and A. Muttulingam are both about User:Amuttu (who only contributes in Tamil; see his talk page). 145.222.138.134 09:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lambian and Dlyons493; searching for Muttulingam and checking the English results closely finds several references which suggest the subject is considered a notable (and probably popular) Tamil-language author. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but... A. Muttulingam neeeds to be merged with this article. In addition, vanity elements such as the jobs of his children and the praise of his writing style need to be removed. Some minor references to the writer can be found in The Hindu newspaper here Bwithh 14:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge with A. Muttulingam and clean up. - Parthi 20:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I own a couple of his books, and I can confirm that he's a well known short story author - for example, this archive[11] features his works (Nos. 46, 47, 85, 86, 87, and 132 are by him). If I remember right, he's even won a couple of literary awards. -- Arvind 00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And in case there are still any doubts about his notability, the Tamil wikipedia has an article about him: see ta:அ. முத்துலிங்கம். -- Arvind 01:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the article - hopefully this is sufficient to get it through this VfD -- Arvind 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Gogineni

This article on Babu Gogineni was originally contributed by me, user:Skollur. But another user with a similar userid, user:S_kollur started a malicious campaign alleging that I am none other than Babu Gogineni himself. Believing this allegation, a wikipedia administrator User:Gurubrahma categorized the article as one for deletion as it is an autobiographical article.

Though I think that Babu Gogineni is a notable person, other wikipedia users may not think so. Let there be a democratic decision on this point and then decide whether this page should be kept as it is, in a modified form, or deleted completely. Whith this intention I replace the template. Skollur

  • Weak keep without getting involved in whatever dispute is going on between these two users, which I won't try to figure out - IHEU is notable, so as the executive director this guy is moderately notable. The article needs some cleanup but isn't an obvious vanity page (well, except for the part about writing an Encarta article - that's not terribly useful even if true). Opabinia regalis 07:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. Ravenswing 08:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I prodded the article but violation of WP:AUTO was only one of the three grounds or so I had for PROD-ding. delete as NN and apologies to user:Skollur if I have hurt his feelings by my seeming aspersion of vanity/ violation of WP:AUTO. --Gurubrahma 11:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Opabinia regalis; re PROD, the article makes claims to notability, per Skollur is not an autobio, and I fail to see the "thinly veiled advert" (advert for what ?). Angus McLellan (Talk)
  • Keep. Rationalism and rationalism organizations are an important part of the Indian scence, both contemporary and historical. Rationalist organizations in India tend to be like James Randi in the US and debunk what they consider superstitions. Given that advocacy, something inherently POV, is one of their most important goals, I'm impressed by the NPOV tone of this article. Interlingua talk 13:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Interlingua. W guice 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an auto-bio. Many claims are nowhere except in his own controversial interview. The claim that he is a rationalist intellectual is based only on a degree in microbiology (in his own words in the newsletter that he edited later -"after a first degree in biology, I took a break from college and have not returned ever since!")-, some gossip articles in a quarterly newsletter that he edited, and a single small contribution in the Encarta on M.N.Roy.

This article as well as an interview in the newsletter that he edited later, it is claimed that he is the Founder-General Secretary of Rationalist Association of India. Is this correct? In the web site of IHEU where he was employed for nearly 10 years, there are announcements about the 75th anniversary of Rationalist Association of India at Thiruvananthapuram in the year 2006. See links [12] [13]

That means Rationalist Association of India was founded somewhere near the year 1930. How did he become the founder general secretary of it decades before his own birth?

I am a rationalist. Still I vote for deleting this article.

S_kollur

  • Comment Gogineni is at Hyderabad now, not at London where IHEU has head quarters. The present Company Secretary and Director of Operations of IHEU is Suresh Lalvani. S_kollur


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bionicle Sector 01

Delete. Very non-notable fansite. Does not meet WP:WEB or any other form of notability check, hence violating the whole Wikipedia not being a web directory thing. Does not show up in the first 5 pages of Google results for bionicle, unlike another fansite that has so far been accepted. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Full name returns 31 google hits [14] and absolutely nothing showing anything notable. The site forum has statistics disabled, but there were 0 members online at the time I checked--an impossibility if it has enough members to be notable by population. Text of site appears to have been written by the prepubescent: "Bionicle fandom would forever have a reference site that did not suck." --Fuhghettaboutit 06:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above; pretty much ... the site creator abdicated because high school required more of his attention. An illiterate article that doesn't even give the link for the site it's touting? Ravenswing 08:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:WEB, as well as a lack of sufficient notability to warrant own article.--Auger Martel 07:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:WEB, Alexa Rank: 978,865. Not notable. - Motor (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minimal web presence, no attempt to explain the justifiability of "bionicle" or even explain what it is. Back to the drawing board. Interlingua talk 13:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Does anyone even know what the hell it is yet? W guice 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:WEB, not notable enough. Jammo (SM247) 01:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hello all. I am an admin of the BS01 Wiki (Or Utopia as noted on this page). Personally I think that this page should be deleted. The maker of this page, a co-worker of mine, has done nothing to this page. All it consists of is the wiki itself. So I, an admin of the wiki, thinks it should be deleted. Obviously this should be enough to get the job done. But now, I must give some other comments... Bionicle Sector 01 is the most trustworthy and reliable database of Bionicle knowledge for the storyline itself. Quite frankly, I find is funny that you guys take hits on google as a criteria for a website. BS01 does not need to explain what Bionicle is, because all fans that use the site know what the heck it is. It is a database for storyline information. As for the wiki, that is entirely different. The wiki is an add-on of the site and has grown considerably: It it now the biggest database for Bionicle storyline information. Consumed Crustacean, sure you guys have a page called Bionicle, but your pages on Bionicle are very inaccurate. In fact, it is a running joke on BZPower, the largest forum site for Bionicle, that Wikipedia is very inaccurate. Even the writer of Bionicle himself deems it false. XD. ~Utopia from BS01 Wiki
  • Comment - Well, considering that Wikipedia gets over forty billion hits a day, and that your "Bionicle" site isn't even in the Alexa top hundred thousand sites for hits, one would think that if you were serious about this subject and found the information on Wikipedia lacking, you'd improve the article. Surely there are devoted fans of these toys somewhere who consider it more productive to get the message out than to jeer. Ravenswing 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oh, believe me, we don't just jeer. We majorly help changed Wikipedia's pages on Bionicle. We almost made everything accurate, but then some other nutcase (as some member once called them) edited in pure speculation. So we actually do both. As for hits, I wouldn't doubt it. Bionicle isn't exactly your greatest of subjects. Besides, Wikipedia is huge: Just about everything is here and everyone over the entire nation, and sometimes elsewhere use it. So I find it highly unfair to compare both sites. I mean, let's look at the facts. Our wiki has 9 sysop users, only 5 or them are true staff. You guys have almost 1000 admins. Now, the ratio of admins to members is about the same for both of our sites (last time I checked) so if you compare that... 6/1000 is a pretty big difference. Not enough to minimize the gap in hits, but oh well. And also, why do you quote Bionicle? You guys can't exactly compare any wiki to BS01 Wiki because there is a much smaller population going at it. ~Utopia
  • Comment - I would like to apologise. I was busy that day and I could only complete the wiki part of it since that's the place I know the best. I will go and update it as soon as I can. (which is not now) Again, I am deeply sorry. (And Utopia, you are a Moderator, like me, not admin. Swert is admin...) - Bioran23 Quick-Speak
  • Comment - Also, it is NOT a non-notable site. As I stated already, it is supported by the site BZPower, and of which does shows up within the top five of BIONICLE on Google. May I also say that the BS01 members is actually BZPower members. BS01 does not have it's own forums, meaning that it's forums are supported by BZPower. The admin CM has left of which is correct, but it has been passed down to administrator Swert. And also, although there are approx. 600 and more members, they have many unregistered members who read it without signing in. As far as I and Utopia knows, information of the wiki has been quoted more than once on BZPower as proof to many things. As Utopia stated already, Wikipedia's BIONICLE page is being laughed about for it's strong inaccuaracy and lack of information, unlike BS01 Wiki, which has many DETAILED pages on different objects and Locations (Of which I tend to) plus detailed entries on the characters. I found it rather rude to comment on a site which you know nothing about by just "Looking it up on Google as if it is the best source in the world" while your pages are being joked by 30000 people around the globe. And also, Wikipedia is huge, yes it is, but you can not just comment on something which is smaller and seems to be less important in your eyes. You and I are all humans, and you and I are all living organisms, there is no difference. - Bioran23 Quick-Speak
  • Acknowledge - Look, if the page really lacks so much then yes, go ahead and delete it. - Bioran23 Quick-Speak
  • Comment - Bioran, technically, we are all admins. Saying admins is for simplicity sake here because they don't have "moderators." They have different terms, we have different terms, so I'm just speaking in their language. And also Bioran, I see some problems with your comment. You see, we are talking on WP now, and must play by their rules. Now they say we have to be seen by google, for us to have our own page. Although I think it is unfair as well, that is the way things work. But now, using humans and wikis in metaphor? I have to say that there is a difference. But in the end, this duscussion is just a train derailing: It can't be stopped from its doom. Per say their...WP:WEB rules this page is to be deleted. Sorry I couldn't add more...~Utopia

Look. I hate arguments and most of all, fights, so:


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

The result of the debate was Already speedy deleted. —ERcheck (talk) @ 08:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delajoker

Vanity article. Kf4bdy 07:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of education program failures

essay that fails NPOV Nuttah68 07:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GLOPOREIMS

Delete. Company does not seem to meet WP:CORP, and has less than 100 Google results. It's an obvious advertisement. I don't know if it meets CSD, and attempts at prodding have been resisted, so here be the AfD. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, in addition, references not provided per Mikka's request. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TFD

Not notable Benjaminstewart05 07:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • conditional keep if valid references provided for some national fame that was mentoned. `'mikka (t) 08:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, no G-hits. So they appeared - or claimed to have, anyway - on a Filipino afternoon TV program. What about that makes them notable? (I'd try the Tagalog Wiki, myself.) RGTraynor 08:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability means that the subject might be of interest to a sufficiently big nubmer of people. If they appeared on national TV and not once, then do you think TV people are morons to waste the money on a nobody? And many people saw them and may be interested to know about them. `'mikka (t) 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless they've got anything which satisfies WP:MUSIC which at the moment the article does not say they have Ydam 10:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible WP_MUSIC items are Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network and about national tours. But I agree the article doesn't spell it clearly and verefiably. Therefore I myself voted "conditionally". If the article will not improve during the voting period, I'll change my vote to "del". `'mikka (t) 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Znachor

Del Foreign dicdef. A Slavic word for medicineman and nothing more. `'mikka (t) 08:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Proto///type 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midgårds Söner

I fail to see how this band meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. Their first two releases sold 3000 and 7000 copies respectively, and apparently they were not signed to any label. Claims touring - but nothing backs this up, really, and the assertion is vague. Nothing about this band on All Music Guide, and 459 Google hits when excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors. The Swedish Wikipedia version is a substub (which would have gone under CSD A7 over here). Punkmorten 08:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, same as Uppland. I too have heard of this band, and as Uppland says, they are one of the more famous White Power bands in Sweden. It seems they have releasted some of their albums on "one of the more important indie labels" (the Ultima Thule Records, which is, I think, the largest Vikingarock label in Sweden, it has released albums with at least two of the best known Swedish Vikingarock bands) which would satisfy one of the WP:MUSIC criteria. It also seems they have toured abroad, in Germany. – Elisson • Talk 17:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multimodality Integrated Biofeedback Therapy

Spamming of original research. User has spammed this content to several other articles also. Barrylb 08:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, per author's request. --JoanneB 10:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Island Of Dr. Mogulus

Appears non-notable; only three google hits. --Robert Merkel 08:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn.--blue520 10:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IN REPLY FROM AUTHOR

this story has been published. If you do a google search as simply "Island of Mogulus", you get the following result [15] I sat with the author of the book today and spent 4 hours on this entry. please provide advice as to what needs to be done to comply. I would be more than happy to do so.

I am the original author of the flagged entry and used the authors' name to sign up. But it was my idea to post the article for him.Glenn King

  • Delete the additional info posted by the author is a blog Nuttah68 09:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely NN fanfic. To answer the author; to achieve notability per these guidelines - "books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify." Get the book published, basically. Tevildo 10:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrade to Speedy G7 per reply below and blanking by original author. (It's wikipedia.org, incidentally). Tevildo 10:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IN REPLY FROM AUTHOR

this is not a fanfic. reading the article would have shown you would know this.

As per the fact that the author doesnt' have an Isbn number, there are articles on this site that I have read that have not been flagged about things as irrelevant as FORUM THREADS. this led me to believe this site was something it is not.

  • Delete I myself wish the article to be removed. And I doubt Wikipedia.com will hold as much cred with me in the future as it used to.

I also suggest if articles like this are irrelevant, and editing is so reversible, to hold higher standards as per who gets to edit and who gets to create articles.


I am the original author of the flagged entry and used the authors' name to sign up. But it was my idea to post the article for him.Glenn King


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia jenner

Not notable. She ran in the "Democratic nomination for Governor for the State of Oklahoma" in 1986, and got 4 % there. In other words, not close to being a holder of public office. 28 Google hits. Punkmorten 08:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tropical countries

This list is not useful. "They usually have high quality beaches, a hot climate, and they are known to produce many varieties of exotic fruits and vegetables." Punkmorten 08:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. No one wants this deleted, thank goodness. As it is, we have a 60% vote for merge, but I'm going to exercise a bit of discretion here -- the Chairman is a very important person, and a frequent spokesperson for the US military. In my view, Jayzel's points are well-taken, so I'll keep outright. Xoloz 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

this article is a almost exact duplicate of what is already written in Joint Chiefs of Staff#Chairman A mon avis, there is no point in having two articles listing the same things. Knows it all 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Goldlist

Defeated city council candidate with only limited claim to notability apart from that; page created by User:Goldlist and hence most likely WP:VANITY. Previously had a {{prod}} notice on it, which was removed by an anon IP with no discussion or reason given. Delete, sez I, though I'd settle for a userfy, too. Bearcat 08:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete see WP:NOT guideline 1.7 (6) Genealogical entries. Criteria calls for "some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety" as can be measured by "external sources (on or off-line)." This article does not contradict the guideline, and I believe adds to WP, definitely does not detract. Ottawa politics (contribs) 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article as it has made an impact and is noteworhty in the small local community of Fredericton - Just because I've never heard of that city, it is the capital of the province of New Brunswick and has evidently left an impact there. Does the criteria of wikipedia call only for national or international notoriety? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.17.140 (talk • contribs) . All of this user's edits have been on the current subject.
Yes, actually, the criteria of Wikipedia do call for that. Bearcat 16:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 00:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Huzzey

Only author of the page, Joe Chick (contribs), has tagged it for AfD, but never completed this article, so I have tagged it for Speedy db-author. Fan1967 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 14:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twsf.co.uk

Advert and not a notable company Benjaminstewart05 09:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was moved to correct location. Vary | Talk 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Programming the Universe"

unnecessary quotation marks. I copied the article to Programming the Universe, linked this page, as it was an orphaned page, to the article Seth Lloyd. Now there are two articles with the same content, "Programming the Universe" and Programming the Universe and I'd propose the former to be deleted. VStM Mari 09:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrumology

Blatant adcruft; created by user with same handle as owner of spectrumology.com CH 09:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Wood

Another NN child actor. Has a few film credits, but these are in bit parts. Has a handful of TV credits as well. Besides these credits there is no biographical infomation available. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 10:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosslynn Taylor Jordan

Fails WP:BIO in my books, nn voice actor and casting director with most of the work related to the Survivor tv series, and only 137 ghits. It may deserve some minor mention in the main Survivor article, but otherwise a clear case of survivorcruft. --Arnzy (whats up?) 11:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was userfy and delete. I moved the text to a subpage of the user's page and left a message. Hope that will be it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ali Salman Al-Hajri

nn bio BillC 11:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead stop (band)

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 12:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Xoloz 15:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank E. Willis (mayor)

Non-notable local politician. Does not meet notibility under WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 12:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge tags added. This AfD has inadequately addressed the question of whether an article on a "film" distributed via the Internet with no third-party sources and no assertion of notability belongs anywhere in an encyclopaedia, and I am not prepared to call this a 'keep somewhere' consensus. We'll see if someone actually cares enough to merge the material, and whether it sticks. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-ray of a Lie

Film made by "a group of citizens" in response to a documentary on Hugo Chavez, found only on Google video; nonnotable NawlinWiki 12:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myelin Media

possible vanity page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daviddariusbijan (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 12:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Kimchi.sg 01:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian J.G. Pereira

Not sure how to handle this one (or the redirect Dr. Brian J.G. Pereira). Questionable notability and article appears to be largely lifted from this website: [18]. Medtopic 05:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 13:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mychub

Speedy Delete Non notable site. Author has removed three speedy templates Nuttah68 13:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep nom withdrawn Eluchil404 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Flag

I found this as a speedy delete and changed it into a redirect to Flag. That was reverted so I tried a Prod but that was removed. I don't think there is a need for an Islamic flag article that is seperate from Flag. This material right now is original research, has no references and and seems a bit POV. Also a lot of the information does not seem to have anything to do with Islamic flag. Delete or if someone thinks that any of the material is salvageable then merge into flag. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this page as this subject will grow quickly. I am the author of this page "islamic flag". I am new to wiki and this is my first project. There are lot of information such as islamic rules and regulation in relation flags they will come in near future. I don't think merging will be good idea as it is specific project and unique project will serve people who intersted in the evolution of Islamic flag. there isn't much information available in wiki. I am more then will to share your ideas in relation to this project. This is by no means of just a flag article. this not an article seperate religion by flag rather it focusing no the how islamic flag began and what is its status at present. it will improve in time.

--Sadullah 15:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak merge or delete. The discussion of Islamic flag rules is interesting, but without citations, it comes across as original research. The tone of the article is not encyclopedic. If it's going to be kept, it needs an immediate cleanup and wikifying effort, since any religion-based article that appears to violate Wikipedia standards will inevitably generate a lot of controversy and divisiveness. Kickaha Ota 15:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading the recent edits made to the article, I would say Weak keep instead. The page still needs a great deal of additional sourcing, and the tone of the article still needs work; but the improvements thus far show enough potential to justify encouraging the editors to proceed further. Kickaha Ota 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw My suggestion is to withdraw the nomination & let the author know that you will give it a couple of weeks to include some sources. I cannot judge if the topic can be saved, but a new editor should be given some leeway to work on it. I also don't see this as a case of vanity or an obvious attack article. It may be somewhat controversial, but even so, it seems to be a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia. I believe we can let it mature a little. As for POV, that will have to be worked out if it can be cleaned up with some sources. To the original editor, regardless of what happens, try to gather some sources (in English) that support the topic.Ted 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep the page.Comment: The author. your inputs are appreciated. I need some time to work on it.I just joined "wiki" 2 days ago. testing my article writing and just geeting to know wiki. If you read this article you will find that it is unbiased. I will try put islamic flag information unbiased manner. Your input into the article will be ver much appreciated. It will certainly get better.
This article will not be citation in any way. I am keeping close eye to make sure of that. On the other hand some subject matter may be controversial where carefull choice of word will be considered.
I would like you all check the article as often as you can so, you may advise me.
Ted thanks for your advice
--Sadullah 16:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: Duplicate "vote" by creator of article changed into comment.--SomeStranger(t|c) 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keepComment: in response to Maix. First of all there are no symbols in Islam. However, A symbol may be adopted if there is need but the symbol should be the most simplest form. example a single colour flag meets the need to have unique flag. There are other rules which govern what can be incorporated in a flag. symbols that identify muslim nation doesn't constitute an Islamic act. People need know these issues for better understanding. Deleting an article which written in good faith will deny the opportunity for people find out the truth. I believe the truth should be available for people make choice.

--Sadullah 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Duplicate "vote" by creator of article changed into comment.--SomeStranger(t|c) 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • HI the author again, I have included more stuff in 24 hours but still doing my research. More stuff is comming soon, you comments and suggestions are welcome.

--Sadullah 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems an interesting topic to me and the author is actively working to improve it. Capitalistroadster 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though it needs a massive cleanup. I've added a section on the pan-Arab colours (how could an article on Islamic flags not deal with that topic?). There's quite a bit that's dodgy in there, though - talking about the difference betwen "Muslim flags" and "Islamic flags", which reeksa of OR. And the title should be "Islamic flags" or "Flags of Islamic nations", not "Islamic Flag" - theer is no one "Islamic Flag". Grutness...wha? 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page will be renamed to "Islamic Flags" as suggested by Grutness and I agree. Renaming will take place on 21/06/06 as my account is not old enough to move.

Sadullah (Talk) 12:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Diplomacy

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 13:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carter up all night

Non-notable blog, c. 100 Google hits. Essentially an advertising/vanity page. GregorB 13:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete them all. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Artists Who Have Had Soft AC Hits Or Typically Receive Soft AC Airplay

Original research, not verifiable, depends on definition of typicallity. I can't see a speedy deletion category that would satisfy this, so am bringing it to afd. Inner Earth 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project69

Unnotable MMORPG private server. This article is essentially advertising. Legend of Mir 2 is certainly notable, but an illegal server running out of some guy's bedroom isn't. —Xezbeth 14:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the ammount of vandalism this page is recieving it would probably be in everyones best interests to Delete. —TheStinger

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Fagan

The article doesn't assert notability, and I don't think that the person yet satisfies the requirements for notability, having not yet played professionally. Benjaminstewart05 14:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zwo

Contested PROD. Original reasoning was that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which still holds. This is an article concerning the usage of a single word of German, a topic much better discussed at wikt:zwo. Delete. Angr (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bagnato

Non-notable biography. Delete —Mets501 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirected to Yahoo!, nothing to merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yahoo! Services

Not a bad idea, but it couldn't have been more poorly implemented if they tried. Stev0 15:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge merge tags are up and someone has indicated they will do the merge. W.marsh 13:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Drams

NN band, doesn't meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC Wildthing61476 16:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Turns out the Drams are notable per Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable, but I'll happily merge the three if this is uncontested. ~ trialsanderrors 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As they have yet to record their first album it is too soon to make an assessment as to whether they will become notable. The article should be deleted now but the topic can be revisited in a year or so when they have had chance to make their mark. Non-notable spin-off from barely notable band.BlueValour 20:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wael Zuaiter

(Alleged) terrorist that was assasinated by Israel by involvement in the Munich attacks. There are so few English results on google for him though, that I think that is his only claim to notability. There were plenty of terrorists who attacked Israel - I think including all of them if they are not otherwise notable would be glorifying them. -- Where is Where? 14:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. if he had been recorded as being a terrorist by sources other than the israeli governement then maybe it would meet WP:BIO.

Changed to merge This guy appears to be more notable than initially thought but I'm still not sure this guy needs his own article unless there is more to say on him. Ydam 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Verify and Merge into Munich Massacre Maix84 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, he is featured in the move Munich by Stephen Spielberg, and no real reason for deletion given: "there were plenty of terrorists"?? There has never been any proof that he was a terrorist, just because he was killed by Mossad doesn't automatically mean he was a criminal, take the example of Ahmed Bouchiki. What's interesting about Boukichi is that he was killed by Mossad and not whether or not he was a terrorist. Deleting this article smells strongly of POV itself and can be interpreted as an attempt of cleaning up (i.e. censoring) Mossad's dirty act, no matter if that is the nominator's actual motive or not. Also, I see no reason to merge, what does Wikipedia lose on having a separate article on him? Mackan 18:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Article reeks of POV but subject is clearly notable per Spielberg connection and attendant media coverage. Also an alternative spelling seems to be Zwaiter. ~ trialsanderrors 20:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as per trialsanderrors. The connection with Spielberg's Munich gives it clear, immediate notability, but it would have had that even in the absence of the film. As for POV, I think we can guess the political sympathies of the author, but the language is still generally NPOV. For example, he's described as a spokesman, not a liberator; there's the word "claim" about his being a terrorist, but it's not qualified by any POV adjective. Balancing that, the article clearly talks of the "killing" of the athletes. The number of bullet shots and number of athletes killed are both given in an objective form without any editorializing. Interlingua talk 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energy industries

Yet another nonnotable corporate vanity page NawlinWiki 15:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
This company had significant coverage by multiple published works which do not tout the company in itself. Simply Google or Yahoo! search them and you will find any number of newspaper articles, I have found at least 4 articles written on energy topics not relating to the company's marketing, 1 television documentary and others. I ask you to reconsider after conducting your own due diligence. Unsigned
  • per WP:CORP, this company is significantly "notable" having been nationally recognized for its work in energy efficiency, having presented for the Department of Energy across the world speaking on the Energy Star program, is a recognized expert in the energy industry, has been covered by multiple published works including Hawaii Business Magazine, Pacific Business News, Hawaii Building Maintenance, Earth Toys, NBC, LD&A Magazine, HPAC Magazine, AEE Publication, Pacific Press, Honolulu Advertiser, Star-Bulletin. The company was awarded the SBA Service firm of the Year, the Entrepreneur of the Year in an Emerging Sector and Young Entrepreneur of the Year. The company is currently in consideration for INC's 500 top business of 2006 and received Energy Pioneer of the Year 2006. Please visit: http://energy-industries.com/news_media.php for validation.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les Gentlemen

Les Gentlemen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 1-sentence, 1-ref article on a band, that only says that they were 'popular", was PRODed under A7. It was de-prodded on the basis that it has a single reference. I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including sufficient multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A Google Book preview is available for the reference in the article. The reference identifies pages 289-303 in the book which would appear substantial. My own review of the source only found a passing mention on page 294. I also found another passing mention in this book. Essentially, this verifies that Ralph Thamar was a member of the band, and not much else. -- Whpq (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls 2: When in Spain Soundtrack

This page is for the soundtrack that doesn't yet exist for a movie that doesn't yet exist that if it actually occurs will be released straight to video. Not Notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kershner 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, with weak arguments on both sides and no significant majority in numbers. Although those arguing for deletion haven't responded to the references presented, as none of the information Hiding presented is actually used in the article it's unclear how they will affect it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slam Bang

Seems to be a vanity article promoting a comic book published by the editor. While my first thoughts were that making it a stub may be more appropriate, other similar articles created by the editor (Allen Freeman and Fan-Atic Press) seem to have been simply deleted. While I can't seem to find any evidence of them anymore on Wikipedia, I'm sure they existed, as the content still seems to be mirrored on other sites. Dancter 18:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter Circle Forward

Not particularly notable internet radio show. No claims of notability, press coverage, etc... My vote is clearly delete. Wickethewok 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, i get the feeling this nom is in response to my vote on another article arikane
  • Delete. I don't think so; I've thought about putting this article up for deletion myself ever since the AfD for The Greatness. Voice of Treason 22:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO VOTE from wikipedia notablility page: "The content is distributed via a site which is independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]" vgamp, real life radio, and rant radio seem to fit as independent broadcasters. antmoney85
  • Comment They're no longer carried on Rant; vgamp has an Alexa rank close to 2 million, and real life radio doesn't seem to register on Alexa at all. Fan1967 15:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reservoir Road

Non-notable road. Last section (Einstein & 100 sexiest roads!) obviously made up. Lancsalot 19:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Revenge Tragedy

i believe this to violate WP:BAND and to be supporting itself with an intricate network of other NN articles W guice 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pam England

seeming nn, but wrote a famous book (needs verification). Speedy was contested. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Have added book references and web site details, but doing a mental trim of the article, removing all non notable details, simply leaves the book. (the paintings aren't referred to except on subjects web site) but that, by itself, would fail WP:BIO unless references are forthcoming that this is a groundbreaking enough book to merit the co-author's article being kept on that basis alone. Regards, MartinRe 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the one who protested the prod in this case (about a month ago now?!?! wierd...) I ran her book thought google and got 57k hit. A few of them were from people offering classes (& here) and a few articles in specilty journals (& here) related to child-birth. I think thats a good case for the book being notable, but does it make Pam notable? I'm going to abstain on that one for now. ---J.S (t|c) 20:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Pam describes the new understanding that came to her". Yeah, right, the new understanding that has come to me is that this is a non-notable person. The book OTOH is well regarded and could merit a standalone article. BlueValour 02:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew J. Maxwell

Non notable bio Lewispb 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW Eluchil404 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Amarilla

As an encyclopedia wikipedia shouldn't have a page for every referee no matter how popular the sport. Only notable individuals should be given a biographical page. Kode 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • From WP:BIO: The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Being selected to referee in the FIFA World Cup is about as big as it gets in that field. — TheKMantalk 04:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Reasons to delete far outweigh the (lacking) reasons to keep. Having other useless articles is never a good reason for an useless article to be kept. And J.smith's request for it to be kept if an article doesn't already exist is negated by the wonder that is Category:Mathematics, probably the most complete category I've ever just looked up to see what was on it, and its subset dedicated to this, Category:Mathematical logic. Proto///type 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical logic glossary

Basically an empty list that has not changed since October 3, 2005. Deprodded by User:Freakofnurture. —Mets501 (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that this has existed since October 3, 2005 with absolutely no improvement, and it does not look like anyone is willing to improve it (as of now). —Mets501 (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto///type 12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axonai

Per WP:SPAM and WP:CORP, only 812 Google results, prod was contested--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, articles that fall under WP:SPAM are "articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual". The Axonai article (as of now) reads like an advertisement for a company, not like an encyclopedia article, thus (in my perspective) it falls under WP:SPAM. Also note that I am doing my best to try to assume good faith and remain civil, though if I am not, feel free to remind me.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 16:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any incivility here. Just in general I feel like "spam" is a strong charge to make against a single article because it suggests self-serving intent on the part of the creator, and the problems with the article are adequately covered by WP:CORP and WP:NPOV. The Crow 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:CORP, but needs to be written less like an advertisement. I have added the {{advert}} tag and linked in the references which were easy to find online, and definitely seem to be nontrivial published work about the company from external sources. Mangojuicetalk 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Weak keep. One of the sources, the Purdue Research Park source, is apparently a newsletter for the office building campus where Axonai is housed; this hardly seems independent. The Journal and Courier is a local paper in Lafayette, Indiana (with a bare-bones website, I might add), but the Indiana Business review interview is the real deal. 2 is technically multiple, but this barely counts. Mangojuicetalk 16:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see how this meets WP:CORP. References in published works consist of a company press release published in 3 different hometown newspapers (if you notice, it appears to be all the same press release). Google shows only 507 hits, many unrelated. Company website is a shell with no info on partners or customers. No specific employment figures, no revenue figures, no management names. Someday it may be notable; I'm not seeing it today. The Crow 16:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to my web search, the Inside Indiana Business article was broadcast on WFYI Indianapolis, so I think that one counts. No argument about the other two, except that they aren't press releases. Even the Purdue business park article has a byline from someone not based in the company. Mangojuicetalk 16:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the criteria states that the "company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". The Axonai article, on the other hand, has been referenced by only one notable published work (the other two sources don't seem to be notable. Also, the Purdue Research Park source most likely isn't independent from the Axonai company) --☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 17:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • shrug* Maybe, maybe not. Lots of people document their own employers, hobbies, academic fields, schools, whatever. As long as it's notable and meets Wikipedia standards, no problem. The Crow 17:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:AUTO: You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. ~ trialsanderrors 17:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:AUTO references this observation from WP:V: Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves . . . so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources. WP:V is a Wikipedia policy; WP:AUTO is only a guideline. The Crow 17:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, WP:V says self-documented sources are allowed, within limits of notability and POV. WP:AUTO is not a policy. The Crow 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what? It's a guideline and I tend to adhere to it. I have no problems with this article being verifiable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTO is a good guideline, and vanity articles tend to have significant problems of NPOV and verifiability. However, I don't think articles should be deleted on the basis of WP:AUTO when those problems have been resolved, and the subject of the article is worth including. The difference, I think, is that vanity articles that no one has bothered to verify or make neutral can be deleted because of the concerns in WP:AUTO, but non-vanity articles with these same problems, we should keep around and hope they get fixed up. Mangojuicetalk 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to Load (album). Proto///type 12:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't My Bitch

Prod, deprodded by me; prod concern was for notability of the song. The article claims it received attention for its use of a guitar slide in the guitar solo (no source for this), which is a kind of notability I hadn't seen a debate on, so I brought it here. No vote from me. Mangojuicetalk 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - no prejudice against recreation at a later date in a more encyclopaedic form. Reasons to delete (that pesky WP:NOT) were far stronger than reasons to keep ('I think it should be kept', 'weak keep', 'keep although it needs substantial work'. I've dumped a copy in Omagh Bombing/names, if anyone wants to use the information. Proto///type 12:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now moved to Talk:Omagh Bombing/names per WP:SUBPAGES.--Chaser - T 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Omagh Bomb Victims

WikiP' is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this article clearly is. Paul Carpenter 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's prob a better suggestion.GiollaUidir 13:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Proto///type 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mego Inc

Speedied twice at Mego inc. Founded last summer, planned product launch in October. Author/cofounder of the company disputes deletion, see talk. Bringing here to gain consensus. Vary | Talk 16:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Proto///type 12:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manikonda Chalapathi Rau

Subject seems non-notable and books do not exactly appear to be bestsellers from Google results. - Tangotango 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The author does not show up in my A9 search. Delete per WP:NN --Alphachimp talk 16:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Oddly, the few Google results he does get seem to call him "famous", but without really qualifying that statement. See this. Looks like it may be an attempt to write himself into history, I don't know. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Books are easily verifiable e.g. [22] Dlyons493 Talk 22:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your link in broken. However, a search indeed confirms their existence. They aren't particularily in many libraries, but they're out there. I'm still abstaining. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe a browser issue - it's working fine from here. Suggest you try to cut and paste the link into your browser. Failing that search on the names of some of the books. I think this is a a typical systemic bias issue - he's actually quite famous but under-represented on the Web. Dlyons493 Talk 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is the first time I am adding a page on Wiki. The content is genuine. The author, Chalapathi Rau M, was a famous journalist and had a profound influence on the development of journalism in India during the post-independence era. All books of this author appear with name Chalapathi Rau M. Search on A9[23], Google[24], [25] etc. with the keywords "Chalapathi Rau" or "Chalapathi Rau M" or "M Chalapathi Rau" will verify this. I am working on getting the exact birth and death date of the author and brief biography of this author. I will update this page with these details at a later time. But, in the mean time let me know how I can stop this page from being deleted. Thanks. --[email protected] 00:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He seems to be a published author of note. ImpuMozhi 03:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: seems notable, as an editor of the National Herald for thirty years. The Publications Division of the Government of India seems to describe him as a scholar of note, and that may be true. However, I have noticed over the past couple of days that the references sections of certain articles are being bombed with Chalapathi Rau - authored references. Jawaharlal Nehru is one example. That makes me suspicious. No vote. Hornplease 05:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need for concern over recent activity on Chalapathi rau M. I have been trying to refer his work at all relavant places in Wikipedia. Chalapthi Rau M was close associate and friend of Jawaharlal Nehru and an expert on Nehuruvian thought. The books added in Jawaharlal Nehru are commonly referred works on this topic.[email protected] 06:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the last link added by me just now in the external links of the article; Mention in a reputed academic article is something. Also, being regarded as Nehru's unoffical media advisor is notable, imo. I guess the problem with Ghits is due to various transliterations possible. Also, suggest that it be moved to Chalapathi Rau or Chalapati Rau. --Gurubrahma 05:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Proto///type 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PetrolPrices.com

Tagged for deletion by Nuwewsco (contribs). Comment on talk page is "Spam for www.petrolprices.com"'. Just completing the nomination. No Vote. Fan1967 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Village Market

Non-notable commercial outlet, non encyclopedic content.Bob 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Not really suitable for automatically userfying, as he didn't make it himself. Proto///type 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McBroom

It is an obvious vanity page created by user 'mcbroom'. It needs to be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wihut (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep exceeds my threshold for notability. snug 22:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy If my threshold for notability was weakened by 90%, McBroom still wouldn't pass it. Fails WP:PROF. -- Kicking222 23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete google finds very little on "Andrew McBroom", the only hit which might be the subject is a teachers golf tourney score. --Eivindt@c 23:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Userfy as per Kicking222. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:PROF Kershner 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The "presenter for the Discovery Channel" might provide sufficient notability if it were "frequent", rather than "occasional", and if it could be verified. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I doubt this is a true vanity page; I have been to the school at which he teaches and know the man. While I cannot comment on the validity of the stated reasons for notability (i.e. presenting on a famous TV channel), I doubt that he himself has written the article. I am almost certain, in fact, that the page (and the associated user account) was created by a pupil of the school; a pupil who probably thought he was being undoubtedly witty and hilarious. And finally, it is not entirely unreasonable that he had, in fact, presented a television programme. As many have stated, however, this is not enough for an article, and he is as famous as several other teachers from said school. --Masud 01:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am pretty certain he didn't personally create this page, and you need to take into account that the pupils at the school will continue to vandalize the page as long as it is here. I also don't think that being an occasional presenter for the Discovery Channel is enough to warrant an article - how many others have their own page? Paddyohale 09:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What's the harm anyway?! schuldy 17:34, 22 June 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Pell city high school

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Summers

Doesn't meet inclusion guidelines at WP:BIO —WAvegetarian•(talk) 23:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 17:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn. W.marsh 13:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chubby Killer

Was prodded, editor removed prod without explaination now comes to Afd, nn notable film not yet released googled as in production, no Alexa traffic rank.--Dakota ~ 18:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this time I withdraw the Afd nom seeing a sufficient concensus of opinion to keep. Thanks.--Dakota ~ 22:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was listed as to be released by IMDB Feb. 2006 and Oct. 2006 by Yahoo movies, had no Alexa rank and was previously deleted June 17, 2006 so is actually a recreate.--Dakota ~ 19:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 17 June deletion was for an empty article, so the fact that the article has been written with content added does not violate the recreate policy. —C.Fred (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete if this content does get merged somewhere let me know so I can undelete the history. W.marsh 13:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnecular bond

This concept exists only within a not (or marginally) notable fringe theory, how to fuel cars with water. Please delete, eventually adding a line to History of perpetual motion machines. --Pjacobi 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. A fringe theory may in some cases be notable (not that this necessarily is), but not a part of it. Zarniwoot 19:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Complete nonsense. No theoretical chemist, and I am one, would have a bar of it. --Bduke 23:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I demand equal attention to my theory of the Ridicular bond (with a tentative theoretical interpretation based on the new species of Lambiam ridicules). Here is a quote from another equally revolutionary theory of the same pfysicist: In this note, we propose, apparently for the first time, a new type of controlled nuclear fusion called "intermediate" because occurring at energies intermediate between those of the cold and hot fusions, and propose a specific industrial realization.[26] That having been said, I'm afraid that this magneculous theory has some degree of notability, not as much as perpetua mobilia and antigravity of course, but perhaps enough to warrant an article. If someone has access to Springerlink they may want to summarize a review in Foundations of Physics of Santilli's Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry on which this all is tentatively based. --LambiamTalk 23:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. New woo theories should try to explain the basics first in a central article (HHO gas would do, but redirects to Yull Brown anyway, which doesn't tell anything that makes sense yet either), then the particularities take root in sub-topics. Femto 13:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense.--MichaelMaggs 16:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's in contradiction with the theory of the Deletium Principle. linas 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge my new version, darn it all, with Water fuel cell; note well that Ruggiero Maria Santilli is prone to found "journals" in order to self-publish his own cranky papers. Alas, he has at least three websites with enough visibility on the crank web that this is likely to pop up again. None of us needs the grief which would result, but I see a real need for a searchable cranksite database to help us keep track of what I see as a kind of shilling via obscure multiple identities, crank journals masquerading as mainstream (see Journal of Scientific Exploration where I could use some support).---CH 08:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe merge with this draft. Santilli appears adept at self-promotion and he does have a presence among the new energy cranks, so there may be some value on attempting to provide some kind of links to debunking sites.---CH 10:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Move and merge with draft into Ruggero Maria Santilli. (Keeping a redirect from magnecular bond seems unnecessary, as it's unlikely there's any time soon going to be need for linking this title from articles that are not related to this guy.) Femto 12:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Fang Aili, recreated, re-speedied by me and then protected. It's time this three ring circus left town. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaka (The Lion King)

Most of the text came from Kopa. Also, I can't find any reliable information about this Lion King character. Starionwolf 18:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. lots of ghits for "wunderland" none of which are this company. Fails WP:CORP, no evidence of notability in the article --++Lar: t/c 04:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderland

I just can't see how this passes WP:CORP. UsaSatsui 19:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. No ghits except mirrors of us. Consensus seems clear, funny comments or no. --++Lar: t/c 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper super dyslexia

Dyslexia makes no mention of this variant and a quick search on the internet also turns up nothing. I think that this is not a recognised variant and hence is not worthy of an encyclopaedia article RicDod 19:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as whatever that CSD is that is all internal or external links. Kotepho 15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in the Bible

Totally inappropriate use of wikipedia. We do not need a list of 36,000 redirects. Nor do we need a list of lists of redirects that together constitute 36,000 redirects. Clinkophonist 19:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in the Gospel of Matthew

Its a list of 2000 articles. All of which are redirects to Gospel of Matthew. Clinkophonist 19:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in 1 Esdras

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so notable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in 2 Esdras

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in 1 Maccabees

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in 2 Maccabees

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in the Book of Tobit

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in the Book of Judith

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in the Book of Wisdom

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in Ecclesiasticus

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in the Book of Baruch

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in the Story of Susanna

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in Bel and the Dragon

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so notable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in Second Chronicles

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention added well after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in the Book of Ezra

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention added well after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters and verses in First Kings

This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention added well after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. 20 ghits for this term. No evidence of notability in the article. Consensus here is clear. --++Lar: t/c 04:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie and the Muppets Take it all Off!

Non Notable? You decide. Use Google. Igotsomeapples 19:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. consensus is clear. --++Lar: t/c 04:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of slang terms for automobiles

List, non-encyclopaedic, pointless. BlueValour 20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Rock Society

I prodded for lack of assertion of notability. Prod removed with comment that hosting notable artists confers notability. I dissagree; notability is not gained by association with notable people. Fails WP:ORG Eluchil404 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The net impact

WP:NN, WP:NOT a web directory, Vanity Kershner 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Proto///type 13:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heelstraps

Non-notable product, article apparently created by the product's creator. Vanity/spam/advertisement —C.Fred (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete- csd g7--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KBIT-FM

I can't find any evidence that this radio station ever existed. Appears to be pure conjecture. -- Bill (who is cool!) 20:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. But as this page is on info pre-1987, and is thus very likely to come up with google hits etc, this doesn't mean that verifiability can be ignored - otherwise we'll be in a situation where any old rubbish can be added, and people can claim it was from before the Internet. I will tag the article as requiring citation and get in touch with the article creator. Proto///type 13:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Block

Just another non-notable company, has very very few Google results to boot. Cyde↔Weys 20:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete And merge useless info (if any?) with relevent articles. --D-Day I'm all ears 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. says "Block" far too many times W guice 21:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The company is defunct (or at least its name was abandoned in 1987 after which its stores were under the new owner's name), but significant as part of the history of retailing in the U.S. Because it's an article on an historical company, not one that is currently active, the comparatively few Google hits are still consistent with the store chain being notable. Besides, it was a significant employer in Indianapolis for many years. Please re-evealuate your votes in light of this information. TruthbringerToronto 03:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—This retail company was the second largest retailer in Indiana with a long history and brand recognition. Limited information available on the Internet supports the need for Wikipedia entry. A void exists for historical tracking of the currently most volatile significant 20-year history U.S. retailing, set in motion by the activities Campeau. The results being the destruction of companies, loss of civic pride as mid-sized American cities saw their downtown retail districts disappear, and now witness similar results as suburban malls have four major department store anchors become one company: Federated Department Stores. Published literature on this matter is limited. This is American retail history, local history, and economic development. EssEff 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per EssEff; important historical data that should not be lost Saga City 11:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EssEff for historical interests. If the name was abandonded in 1987 then it is before the internet and likely to fail the google test regardless. So one should judge from its historical value instead of google test. --WinHunter (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP[], and thank your lucky stars that research of this quality is showing up in Wikipedia at all. This person has done his homework, and is obviously a professional writer. Comments to delete above say more about those writers than anything they had to add. Imagine saying that the work "Block" was used too many times as it is the name of the business being discussed! Also the infrequent mentions in Google are to be expected when considering regional commercial history--it is well-researched articles like this that make the best case for Wikipedia existing at all. I intend to read all future articles by this author. Also, do the people recommending deletion HAVE any interest in commercial history? Do they even know what it IS? --RogerCBT 23:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)RogerCBT[reply]
  • Keep[[]]Although it might seem to some of limited experience that William H Block was a minor company in a minor market, it is just clear that they have no understanding of how important individual approaches to retailing used to be. Nowadays all houses are built alike, most malls look alike, and the character of any given retailer is diluted though focus groups, boards of directors, bean counters, and souless executives, and are we any better for it? This is a particularly well written article and there cannot be any question as to it's value to us all. --TopMark 23:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)TopMark[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn For President

Non-notable political movement, and WP is not a soapbox or forum for political discussion. mtz206 (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to King Kong Lives. Kimchi.sg 01:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong II

This is just weird. The movie described in this article doesn't exist, so it seems to be some sort of strange joke/hoax. --Hetar 20:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge with WordPad. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cetus CWordPad

WP:NN, Wikipedia is not a place to collect lists of every non-notable piece of software in existence. Additionally, this is clearly an advertisement, the advert tag was added by the original author. Kershner 20:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COuld someone merge this with wordpad? It is pretty notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.239.219.180 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 Jun 2006 (UTC)


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with WordPad at best, Delete at worst -- MrDolomite 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Though I must say, I don't think I've ever seen anyone tag their own article as an advertisement...! Wickethewok 15:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Note: The vendor, Cetus, no longer supports this program. The program will not work with Microsoft Word 97 and later versions." (from PC World). Seems somewhat obsolete software to me, completely restricted to Windows 95 (which is no longer supported by Microsoft). I don't believe obsolete stuff like this is notable, personally, and it shouldn't be merged with non-obsolete software like Wordpad without strict caveats. But preferably, not merged at all. --DaveG12345 17:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best of very mild historic interest (no particular objection to merge if someone wants to though). Dlyons493 Talk 19:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Surely this is a piece of program that does not work now, but one should mention this for historical purposes, especially when it is an addon to the WordPad, I see no reason not to put such info there. --WinHunter (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Further research seems to suggest that this software may well work with later operating systems, but cannot handle Word files beyond Windows 95 vintage. The problem with merging with Wordpad is that Wordpad is a long-standing and current product that now incorporates many of the "advanced features" of this software itself, and handles all Word formats out of the box too. Merging this somewhat inconsequential software product into Wordpad properly would simply result in a screenshot and explanation that, above and beyond Wordpad, this product has spell checking and thesaurus, but cannot handle most Word files on the planet. Also the two download links on the article are now defunct. This article simply contains such limited useful information about such a limitedly useful product of no notability that the best course IMO is deletion. I feel proponents of merging are not fully appreciating the fact that this article's text is totally out-of-date, as are its external links. There's nothing useful to merge. --DaveG12345 04:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - and elucidate compatibility concerns - AFAIK, Wordpad itself is nowhere near fully compliant with current Word files either, at least I recall some pretty major formatting screwups when trying to use the MS Wordpad as a viewer. Ace of Risk 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meditations: An Essay

It is a non-fiction, but highly personal essay. Reads like something from a College Creative writing class. No sources are cited, and its not really noteworthy either. V. Joe 20:45, 17 June 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.

Meditations: An Essay

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

The result of the debate was delete both. Kimchi.sg 01:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 Minutes and CRU- Computer Research Unit

nn high school television production. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done to fix the article in order to keep it?, I can assure you this is no joke. - Gategoer 06:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Win an award from a reputable award-provider. Get it shown on national television. Have one of the participants go on to bigger and better things and deserve their own articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 68.184.209.190 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you guys want it gone so badly, then what's taking so long? And also, what can I write that won't be voted for deletion in three microseconds, be honest, I'm still NEW?! I would like to give this webpage a second shot as long as I'm not voted off the island as soon as I arrive. I'm sorry for my tone, but I just got here and everything I wrote, that was factual, has been voted for deletion, including the pictures! I support majority rule, but what about minority rights? -Gategoer
  • 'By the Way-Just to ask because I really don't know, who put "Zoe" incharge of everything, is this Zoeipeida.org? If it was, then by all means I understand, but it's not. Was she voted in by everyone, did she appoint herself? Is she really the administrator? Does she hold majority share in Wikipeida, is she the president of the company? Just asking because she seems prettty angry at me when I only been here for 2 days and I didn't know all the rules. All I ask is a decent response explaining what the heck is going on and why some articles stay and others go, that's it. Please Repsond. I offer peace and regretfor something I had no idea offended others here. I'm sorry.
:: You should read Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. There were no sources cited in your articles, that would have been a good start. 24 Minutes may have been a great production, but that doesn't warrent inclusion in Wikipedia. What makes it more notable than any other parody produced at any other high school? Or even shows produced by other Lindbergh students in the past?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gategoer

nn slang term that gets 26 Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Jenny, Project Jan

Reads like an advert, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria (on self-produced EP and website downloads), originator removed {prod} notice and then added link to band's website. Delete -- Karada 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was punch out of existence. Kimchi.sg 01:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Punch

This page is about a type of punch that seems to be used over a very limited geographic area by very few people. In addition it is also completely unverifiable. RicDod 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real McCoy's

Restaurant in Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario. The article claims that it is well-known, but I doubt it is outside of the area since google returns only about 20 hits for "Real McCoy's" +Scarborough. -- Where is Where? 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RTTN.COM SERVICES

This page is about a small internet business that does not seem to meet the standards for inclusion laid out at WP:CORP. In addition the page seems to have been created as an advert. RicDod 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete to purge copyvio and redirect to adultery. Kimchi.sg 01:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adultry

Wikipedia is not the place for religous tracts. V. Joe 21:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn. W.marsh 13:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weboptimus

Not notable. Total advert. Brad101 21:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWars

Just an entry on a game that somebody made up. It is nn. -- Where is Where? 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy / deleted (as it's been transwiki'd). Proto///type 13:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cenodoxus in Latin

Transwikied to the Latin wikisource. The stuff in the article that isn't source text is original research. TheProject 21:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. 93 ghits. Fails WP:WEB. no evidence of notability in article, no independent sources. --++Lar: t/c 03:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aabahran : The Forsaken Lands ( FL mud )

Another non-notable online game. Their website has an alexa rank of 462,356. Only ranked #28 at the Mud Connector, which means they don't even have enough users to stack that vote until they can get into the top 10. No reliable sources exist for the game and there has been no significant press coverage. While there is no WP:MUD criteria, this is fails both WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE which are the two most appropriate critera. --Hetar 22:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC) FL has been above top #10 on Mud Connector many times, just because they are now does not means nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mya231 (talk • contribs) .[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Proto///type 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus on the destruction of Jerusalem

This appears to be a POV FORK of Olivet discourse (aka 'eschatological discourse'). Clinkophonist 22:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus - default to keep. The arguments for keep/merge/delete are equally persuasive. Kimchi.sg 01:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion the Waitress

Only 1 known copy in existence by Matt V. Why does this deserve an article, then? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This release was the basis for a commercial remix that was later put out on a compilation. For completion it has been included. There may be more than one copy, but they haven't been uncovered yet. What is the minimum for it to be useful? Sometimes only a handful of copies of a release are made. Fans want to know about these release regardless of how many known copies exist. Also its a part of Darren Emerson remix history, and is notable for that also. Negative1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Negative1 (talk • contribs) .
  • Because it is a legitimate musical release that happens to be exceptionally rare. I vote keep for the sake of completion.   Ethan  23:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a genuine record by a noteable group. The exceptionally small edition actually makes it of greater interest bearing in mind the numbers they could have sold at this time. Ac@osr 01:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, not only is this an incredibly bizarre little single, but it's a single by Underworld, arguably one of the most important electronic music groups ever. Absolutely nothing wrong with this single. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Not every album from notable groups is notable. Merge it to Underworld if it is that interesting. Ted Talk 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is incredibly rare, and of course rather expensive to own. Its existence was not known until it surfaced on ebay, and failed to meet the reserve price??? Sounds a bit like eBay pimping by the owner. ~ trialsanderrors 07:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is not written by the owner. As far as I know, the owner of this single hasn't seen the article (yet). Let me emphasize again that there are no ill intentions here. I would be happy to edit it so that it doesn't sound like "eBay pimping" -- am I allowed to do that while it's up for deletion? (I'm rather new to wikipedia.) I've edited the article to appear more professional. Let me know if anyone still objects.  Ethan  16:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I am the owner of this said record, i would like to set some records straight on it, i won it from ebay from a genuine source, there, are as far as i know, only TWO copies in existence, one owned by me and one owned by the remixer (Darren Emerson). There has never been any ebay 'pimping' of the record as far as i know (i've never put it on ebay). The track itself appeared as a remix on a compilation album and the 2 acetates were prodced by Darren to promote the mix on the compilation and also the album from which the original came. It is a genuine release, and as such should be considered in the Underworld page. Would Beatles fans dismiss a rare one off recording of their songs?? As such to remove it from the discography side of the Wiki would be like saying this track doesn't exist - which of course it does.--Mattval1 17:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+ SCALE

Artists' collective; article doesn't assert sufficient notability NawlinWiki 22:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kekkosism

Hoax article, no such religion exists. Only non-WP Google hit is this, which lambasts Wikipedia (in Finnish) for allowing such garbage. Jpatokal 22:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep nomination withdrawn Eluchil404 02:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Tuppy

While the subject appears to have a claim to notability, none of the content can be cleaned-up nor can any of the content be verified due to the original article being written in broken English (mixed in German words). After attempting to clean the document twice, I have come to the conclusion that it cannot be salvaged without being forced to guess as to the actual meaning. Google searches did not yield enough information to correct factual inaccuracies nor validate existing facts. In the simplest terms, delete per Verifiability and Unreadable/Unusable content Kershner 22:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Simmons

The article says he wrote a book and started a graphics studio, but I can't find anything on the website to indicate that either he or is studio is notable. The original article was created by an anonymous user and included an amazon.com affiliate link that included the name of the studio. This made me think it is a vanity article. Wmahan. 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 22:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 13:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Night In The Hills

I'm not sure what this is. "Fight Night In The Hills" gets two Google hits. "Roop TV" gets three relevant ones. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 21:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CLEAR Circles

Group of management courses at one college, reads like PR, nonnotable NawlinWiki 23:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 21:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. TigerShark 21:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in the Animal Crossing series

A list of very minor characters in the Animal Crossing series. This is very heavy on game-guide content ("You can do this, you can do that"), but if the game-guide content were removed, there wouldn't be anything but a list of character names and one- or two-line descriptions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's a lot you can write about the characters (especially since they talk a lot about their past in Wild World), the article just needs more work done. SNS 23:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is summarizing the stated backstory of characters in a wholly plotless game encyclopedic? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page, but edit it a little, and restore the free-standing K.K. Slider entry. Just my opinion. K.K. Slider was a nice entry. Why make it only a redirect?little otik 02:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with SNS, more work needs to be done, however, the characters, in the game, are hardly minor. ThatSandersKid 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like the nominator to expand upon his reasoning for the deletion of this article. So far you have highlighted some minor problems with the article that can be easily fixed, such as game guide content. But there is plenty of information on the characters that isn't "You can do this, you can do that". I so far fail to see how it meets criteria on WP:DEL. Hammer Raccoon 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's plot summary of a game that doesn't actually have a story. Wikipedia isn't the place to describe, in detail, the backstory of every single minor character, and most of these characters serve little other purpose than "Foo sells/gives away bar." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire|past ops) 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:FICT seems to contradict your statement that Wikipedia isn't the place for this. However lacking in plot the game is, these characters are integral parts of it. There is enough non-game guide information for an article to themselves, yet too much information to fit into the main article. Strong Keep, Wikipedia guidelines support the inclusion of these types of articles. Hammer Raccoon 17:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Animal Crossing is a popular enough video game for its characters to have separate pages. This article should be about villagers, and the other characters should have separate pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadoman (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep. There is no POV or cruft in describing, say, Tom Nook's store, his personality, etc. I think it's silly to try and delete a list of characters - especially considering the series is massively popular. And to Shadoman, they are not notable enough of characters to warrant their own article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JadeGryphon (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Don't delete, but rather expand on. It's a good solid list and as others have said, better than giving each character their own page, which would be even *more* wasteful of space because there's not much on all of the characters. It's better just to put them all on one page like that.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity (Baseball)

There is no information on this page that couldn't or shouldn't be on the pages of the three players discussed. Moreover, If you ask one million people what you are referring to when you say "Holy Trinity" not one is going to answer "Baseball shortstops." This was a usage that had a very brief window and was not particularly widespread.

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_17&oldid=59183751"