Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by James084 (talk | contribs) at 03:48, 6 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< February 5 >

Purge server cache

February 6

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 patent nonsense and vandalism. "After this time period has expired, then the male must perform a spell on the female. This is a very important part, because if no spell is casted, you must restart from the beginning." Yes, sure. - Mike Rosoft 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeety Bop Skeet AKA " The James Bowman"

Non-encyclopedic, non-notable, vanity page. --Last Avenue 00:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep, following re-write. BD2412 T 19:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

List of UML tools

Delete Redundant to Category:UML tools; WP is not a list of links Karnesky 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have tried to clean up the list by slashing & burning non-notable links. I'm a little more happy with it--enough to withdraw my Delete vote. Not so happy to actually vote keep, though (I think it should just be a cat, but it is no longer the least maintained software list). --Karnesky 16:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete per nom. Avi 01:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if linkspam can be removed. -- Avi 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ruby, the above can be parsed two different ways: 1) "Delete the article because it is linkspam", or 2) "Delete that portion of the article which is linkspam". I'm guessing you intended the first, but could you please clarify your intentions? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you delete this, the content will appear inside UML Tool. This also adds more information that the category as it allow for a brief description of the tool. It's also somethign that is useful. Mjchonoles 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note There is sufficient debate not to have a "speedy" keep. I think that any notability should be prerequisite for list inclusion in lists such as this, so several stubs wouldn't be a bad outcome to this: they would provide an instant test over whether a product was useful or just more link spam. I have started cleaning up the lists that are in Category:Lists of software, including List of wiki software (partly by rming external links and non-notable products). But one list at a time! Some of the articles in the wiki list need to be stubbed. List of UML tools is my most controversial List AfD, but it also has:
    • one of the highest level of link spam
    • so many programs which are non-notable
    • very little effort to clean it up and keep it clean has been made (people have even thwarted past efforts to remove the external link cruft)
    • an unmaintainable (or at least unmaintained) breadth of focus (see discussion page on last question of AfD)
    • the category includes all of the programs in the list and some which aren't in the list
  • List of Petri net tools does need a clean-up, but people have been making efforts to do so. I haven't yet touched it. Again: One list at a time. There's no reason to move these lists back to the original articles. But that's not an excuse to keep poor lists. Categories should be used when they can provide enough information. Lists should be kept to the same standard as if they were kept in the original article. This list hasn't been kept to that standard; the link spam is just terrible.
--Karnesky 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"one of the highest level of link spam" do you really talk about List of UML tools?? "an unmaintainable (or at least unmaintained) breadth of focus (see discussion page on last question of AfD)" there was nearly zero discussion about deleting List of UML tools. "very little effort to clean it up" - whoops?? how that. As you can see I have kept that list quite clean without much discourse among contributors. I'm really asking are you really talking about List of UML tools? Puzzled. --Adrian Buehlmann 15:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: I've had that List of UML tools on my radar (watchlist) since ever. But I'havent read anything about your concerns on the talk there. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46 external links when only 17 articles are in wikipedia. Even rming external links for blue links, this is 29 external links & 17 internal ones. Since notability should be a criteria for inclusion in the list, a list shouldn't have more external links than internal ones. If you can clean up the list & it is useful beyond the category, I'll gladly change my vote. Right now it is more spam than not. --Karnesky 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The elinks for softwares that have an article can be removed. No problem. What I see a problem is, with "non-notable". Who decides that? I can tell you: this is very slippery ground, especially for such a low edit traffic article as this is. If you remove a certain product, the contributor can be very upset if you have not a clear concept what goes on the list and what doesn't. They will quickly create articles. I don't think this is very helpful. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The external links for blue linked software should go. At least some of the external links in the External links section should go. Notability should be dictated by Wikipedia:Notability_(software). This is one reason why I'm in favor of a cat, rather than a list: the notability of every tool (article) would be tested through an established procedure, rather than turning to a spam-filled list. If a tool doesn't warrant a stub article, it doesn't warrant inclusion in a list. Contributors should not be upset by any bold removal--they can create stubs or argue notability. Without this figure of merit, my vote will stay delete--the list would be uncomprehensive and unmaintainable. -- Karnesky 17:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you can imagine, I disagree with Wikipedia:Notability (software). BTW, it has only proposal status. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I look a little time and started looking closer as some of the redlink entries. Take GNU Ferret, for example. Looking at the Ferret web site, there's really nothing that deserves an article of its own. It's a work in progress, and statistically, most projects at Ferret's level of development are doomed to wither and die. It certainly doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (software), for whatever that's worth. But, as one example in a list surveying the field, it certainly deserves a mention. I could write a GNU Ferret stub, which would certainly improve the blue/red ratio, but it would be making a wp:point for no good reason. As time goes on, some of the red links will turn blue, and new entries (of one color or another) will get added. I don't see anything bad about that -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prune. I agree with Karnesky, external links for which there is a wikilink should go. But I think accusations of linkspam are going too far: a good faith effort to maintain a useful list—even if you think it's not a useful list—is not spam. —rodii 03:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a list that is redundant to a category, an invitation to create a load more articles on nn software, and a list that is of interest to only a limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 11:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories don't make lists redundant. With lists we can do things we cannot do with categories, like adding annotations or sorting non-alphabetically to name just a few. - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as attack page and biography without assertions of notability. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas_J._Costigliola

Delete. Complete garbage, non notable, etc. Xyzzyplugh 00:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, after consideration of sockpuppet voting. Mailer Diablo 02:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NoHomers.net

An article about a non-notable forum. Alexa rank for web address yields a result of 276,755. 10,500 members, sure, but how many of them are active? Kareeser|Talk! 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE
If you came to this page from http://nohomers.net or some similar site outside of Wikipedia wishing to affect the deletion decision process, please be aware that the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry allows for all comments made by new or anonymous contributors to be ignored. Please remember this is not a simple vote, but rather a discussion. If you wish the article kept, you should make logical arguments as to why the article should stay. Please add your votes to the bottom and sign them with ~~~~.

* Delete per nom. Avi 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ruby 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Don't delete. It's mentioned by the creator and producers of The Simpsons on DVD Commentary Tracks multiple times making it one of the most notable Simpsons sites on the web and most influential on a television show. There is an active community with active posts just as many other forums that are mentioned on Wikipedia. Looking Glass 09:25, 5 February 2006 (EST)
  • Don't Delete As Looking Glass said. The board has been mentioned in commentaries and referenced on the show. In addition, staff of the show have held Q&A sessions on the board and visited it. It is the most well-known Simpsons site, and the Simpsons community is rather large. Rekart 21:38, 5 February 2006 (CST)
  • Keep it This site is perhaps the most well known of any Simpsons forum on the WEB, it has been recognized by people who work on the show. The article is well structured and insightfull. KEEP. Curtis 03:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A "non-notable" forum? Ridiculous... their community is huge and is as popular this decade as Alt.tv.simpsons was during the 1990's. The site & webmaster were also mentioned in a Blender_Magazine article this past summer (snippet from Blender). Also, this is what Simpsons creator Matt Groening and producer David Mirkin had to say about the site on one of the Simpsons DVD's: (Groening discusses NoHomers.net) AlJeanRules 23:01, 5 February 2006 (CST)
  • Don't Delete This is a significant forum in a rather large internet community. rexgrossman 22:07, 5 February 2006 (CST)
  • Don't Delete Che-Lives has a wiki entry that has escaped deletion, and has a smaller forum than nohomers.net (had fewer than 9000 members at its height). che-lives.com's Alexa rank is 301,907. Not to accuse Che-Lives of being non-notable; rather, to note that smaller websites have had their relevance contested and have proven themselves worthy. Andy 03:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how a site that is officially recognized by the actual staff of the show is considered "non-notable." The active community is very large and site itself is extremely informative. Kudoshido 18:15, 5 February 2006 (HST)
  • Don't Delete Please do not delete the wiki page on such a significant messageboard. nohomers.net is one of the best online communities you'll ever find, "Simpsons" discussion or not. Keep it. Ericbighead 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey astroturfers, thanks for making it easy to see which ones of you are astroturfers. No authentic Wikipedian phrases their votes that way. Ruby 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, sockpuppet is a slight misnomer here for the policy, but the spirit of it that the raw number of comments by recently registered or anonymous editors carries little weight here needs some name, and it's most typically used in the "sockpuppet" sense of somebody inventing myriad personas to agree with them. If users of nohomers.net want to save this article, use logic and reason, persuade other wikipedians why it should be kept. Just a lot of votes saying "keep" when you are new here aren't going to go far, that's part of why the name of this process was recently changed from "Votes for Deletion" to "Articles for Deletion", to clarify that it's not a simple vote, it's a discussion to come to a consensus of the community. --Wingsandsword 08:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The site does not claim to have 10,000 members or over 1,200,000 posts. That is listed right on the site. That is besides the point. In this case, the notability has not been gained because it's huge (however, the size is quite decent), but because of different things that have already been listed. Those reasons are relevant.

--Looking Glass 06:58, 6 February 2006 (ETC)

  • Keep : sorry, but this (soon-to-be) deletion seems to be entirely unreasonable. just because the site has decided to flood wikipedia with sockpuppets does not mean it is not notable. it has been mentioned by the writers and voice actors of the Simpsons on the DVD commentaries, twice. it has held personal, direct question and answer sessions with three other Simpsons executive producers (different ones from those who mentioned it on the commentaries). both current executive producer Al Jean and former executive producer Mike Reiss have submitted public statements to the board. It has been referenced directly on the show itself. It has at least three Simpsons animators registered as members. Alt.tv.simpsons, which has an article, has had less direct interaction with writers/actors/animators of the show, has never been referenced on the show's DVD commentaries, and has never been referenced on the show itself. And no, its numbers are not enormous, but considering it's a unofficial, privately-run forum with a specific topic, it's pretty large. --Jamieli 12:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think this just barely makes it under the wire of WP:WEB (if the claims of commentary on dvd and other evidentiary claims supporting notability are true). I note that if you parse the language of the WP:WEB section, a case can be made for both keep and delete. Criterion: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Is the DVD commentary a fit? First we have to look at all claims and decide whether that's "multiple." Fairly easy to say the DVD is non-trivial. But does mention in the dvd render nohomer "the subject" of this published work? I would say no. As stated in the exclusion section immediately following, this does not include "a brief summary of the nature of the content." I vote weak keep because of the (possibly trivial brief summary) mention of nohomer, but nevertheless in apparently multiple non-trivial published works. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a fan site can be major enough to have an influence on the show itself, than it should be worthy enough to be a Wikipedia article. I have actually heard the NoHomers mention on the DVD, and the way the staff talk about it, it's clear that it's an influential site. --DVD Smith 21:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've deleted a couple (positive) comments regarding the forum by two sock puppets who, oddly enough, are banned members of the site. Hope that's fine with you guys. :) --AlJeanRules 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this gets kept, which I have a feeling it will, I'm going to start working on an article for the HomestarRunner Wiki, and it's going to have to be kept too for the same reasons. Not that I'm against keeping these sorts of things; I just hope we're prepared for the precident we're setting. --Maxamegalon2000 21:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry, but it does need to be cleaned up. Although many of these comments are by users of the forum, some do make valid points (AlJeanRules particularly), which is what we ask them to do. With one or two exceptions, I don't have any complaints about the discourse of those members that have contributed to this discussion. - N (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Over 10,000 users? Wow. Wiwaxia 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned by the creators, some of them post on this forum and even mentioned on the show once. Uncke Herb 05:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. Sock flood. Stifle 11:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless those mentions by the creators are verified by external 3rd party sources (hosting the info on nohomers.net doesnt count as 3rd party IMHO). I will change my vote should the verification be presented. Also, the article needs cleanup as it does contain some forumcruft. Zunaid 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC). Changing vote to keep following arguments below. Article still contains extraneous info that could be pared down, however the subject seems notable. Zunaid 07:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say the DVDs/episodes themselves are perfectly acceptable, very easily verifiable sources. The main mention of the website on the commentaries is on "Homer The Great", in the season six box set. The mention of the site in an actual episode is in the episode "Sleeping With The Enemy", during the bowling alley scene. --Jamieli 17:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here's an audio clip from a Simpsons DVD mentioning NoHomers.net (the voices you will hear are Matt Groening and David Mirkin, and this is already posted above): (commentary snippet) --- AlJeanRules 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. Socks and cleanupability irrelevant to notability. Turnstep 15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are so many other sites out there that are much larger and more successful that do not have their own site. It seems that this site was created by members only for the publicity, internet sites should not be given wikipedia articles because of their instability. Who knows how much longer that this site will be around anyway? Sure, it was mentioned by the Simpsons creators, but only because it's one of the few large simpsons forums out there. I can understand why Alt.tv.Simpsons has it's own article, because it was a pioneer and is still well known after 15+ plus years. Only the initials of nohomersclub were used on the show, and in the background so only members would get the reference. If the members REALLY must have an entry, why not just give them a small mention in the main article? --Scorpion0422
Scorpion0422 indicated that he wanted his comments removed [1] and seems to be having problems in doing this, so I'm trying to help out here. My personal choice is No Vote. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete under G6, A1, and a whole buncha other things Grutness...wha? 01:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algormortis

Does not meet WP:BIO, among other things. --Kinu 00:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vail Resorts

Not a notable company. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 00:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ashman

Non-notable as written Avi 01:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Splash Reason: nn-bio. --lightdarkness 02:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon The Baptist

Non-notable Avi 01:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I see a red link. Royboycrashfan 01:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some admins must have tossed it. Avi 01:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Console Wars Australia

Non-notable discussion board, delete per WP:WEB Hansnesse 01:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of accounting software

Delete Redundant to Category:Accounting software Karnesky 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we also have a comparison of accounting software. (unsigned comment by JzG)
Redirect to comparison of accounting software. I've already merged the few unique programs from this list to the comparison. I don't see any reason to keep this list now!--Karnesky 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they can; include the red links in the commentary section of the category page. It just is not common. As for me, delete - Skysmith 12:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There are no red links in this list. Furthermore, I've added the appropriate cat tag to all articles in the list. If, in the future, people want to request articles on accounting software, there are already mechanisms to do this without using this list. -- Karnesky 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tricky, page has been around a while with plenty of activity but Wikipedia articles are not just lists of links, internal or external (WP:NOT 1.5.2). On that basis this is delete as (re: Karnesky) the info can and should be found elsewhere. ++Deiz 02:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Rather than having a red link in an obscure list, it would be better to simply create a stub article on any program to be added to the category and let it be fleshed out later. Stubs are much more encyclopedic than red links.
    — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
  • Delete since that's what categories are here for. -- 9cds(talk) 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as we're citing wp:not, "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." This list article has structure not reflected in the corresponding category. There is no policy or consensus against having a list and a category with the same scope. I don't understand the reasoning on this AfD at all.Melchoir 08:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I agree that lists can be fine. I made no complaints about lists of links in the AfD. However, the only "stucture" this list lends is in licensing. So why not create two subcats to the main category accounting software? The reason for this AfD is that the cats are more maintainable than this list & the list, itself, adds very little (licensing). --Karnesky 08:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be harmful to sub-split a category with only 34 articles. This list page is the only way to have all the items on one page, yet still sorted. Okay, so it currently sucks. It could use further breakdown by purpose, or maybe a short description of every item. It can be improved. Melchoir 08:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would it be harmful? I actually think having a cat of Free accounting software would be useful, as it could be cross-listed under the Free software cat. -- Karnesky 08:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because there would no longer be a single place where you could see all the items. One of the purposes of a category is to guide the reader between its articles. Splitting it would make it less efficient. Melchoir 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, merge and redirect to comparison of accounting software. - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to category. I do not see what information that a category doesn't provide. If you want to make the division between free and proprietary, use subcategories. There is no information on this page that couldn't be put on a category page. Stifle 11:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists and categories are complementary, not competitive. Seems like a useful, verifiable list with a well-defined criteria. Turnstep 15:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's a good point - the two lists are certainly competing, aren't they? Since one is a beefed-up version of the other, I'll switch to merge duplicated information (if any) and delete. Turnstep 12:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good arguments on both sides. Currently, this list is more flexible than the comparison table, and (perhaps not a coincidence) there is now another red link on the page. However, the list is essentially duplicated by the comparison table. Suggest the comparison table article doubles as the list article. If necessary to have items which are not within the table, these can be in a separate section. Slowmover 17:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Judge Dredd. moink 01:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawmaster

Comicruft. All relevant information is already and should be on Judge Dredd. Delete. Kinu 01:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was The result was to delete the article. Croat Canuck 02:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Being of the Beautiful (Plato)

nn term used only by one person in his translation of three plato dialogues Heah talk 01:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RoySmith: CSD A7 --lightdarkness 02:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silenoz

Non-notable Avi 01:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was The result of the discussion was to delete the article. Croat Canuck 02:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Ryders

Delete. Google for "night ryders"+rap yields few relevant results. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 01:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, and place {{deletedpage}} on both pages; vehemence of IPs is appreciated and noted, but judgment of more experience editors is accorded more weight. Babajobu 03:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villain (Knox movie) and Knox (animator)

Delete. Originally put up for PROD. Likely vanity; doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Also seems to fail crystal ball test. --Kinu 02:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The related article Knox (animator) was put up for PROD as vanity and WP:BIO failure; added here as part of this AfD since PROD is removed. --Kinu 02:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I wouldn't necessarily say it's crystal ball, though. Royboycrashfan 02:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um this page actually has more info about the movie than Knox's actual site...I actually learned alot about the movie from this page, so i dont see why you should delete it. Same thing with the Knox page..Knox isnt just some nobody who makes movies that only his friends watch, he has millions of fans who know about him. I say keep them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.231.8 (talk • contribs)
    • this page actually has more info about the movie...: Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, nor is it designed to be a primary source for information. If there is more information here than on the "official" page, it effectively turns this article into both of these. --Kinu 02:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep! this page wasnt being used to advertise the website. Me and Marshal(Knox's close friend) added that info because there was a notice saying that there wasn't enough info on the movie. The knox page has been deleted before, but was created again. People obviously think that this page should stay. - Brady Lowery
Comment: That means this is vanity. Royboycrashfan 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; indeed, it can also be vanity if written by a fan, or close relationship." the knox page wasnt created by me or any of knoxs freinds, all we did was edit some things and clean up the page. - Brady Lowery
You made several major edits to the article. It's still vanity even if you didn't create it. Royboycrashfan 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • im just saying that if you guys delete this, some other person will just come along and make a whole new page about this guy. Alot of online film makers have there own Wikipedia pages, so why delete Knoxs? plus he even has more fans than most of them.
  • Speedy Delete — Per Brady Lowery (above) this is recreated previously deleted material. Don't know how to verify that, but I'm sure someone else here does. If it's true, it's CSD:G4
    — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
    • Good catch, Bill... didn't even notice that phrase in that reply. If that article does in fact get deleted again, whether by speedy or consensus means, I recommend the use of {{deletedpage}}, to prevent yet another recreation, which is mentioned as highly likely in one of the other comments. --Kinu 06:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isnt a duplicate of the first Knox page, which i only saw once, and it basicly just talked about how hes a clay animator, and it didn't have much info on it, and it didnt even list his movies (when i saw it anyway), and i dont even think the first Knox page has the same title (i think it was Knox claymation or whatever). This page was most likley created by someone who didn't even know Knox had a wikipedia page before. I dont see any reason why this page should be deleted.....the "villain" page, yes...but the "Knox" page, no, I dont see anything bad about the "Knox" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.73 (talk • contribs)
      • That call for inspection was actually being directed toward an admin, who can access the original deleted page itself and make an objective assessment. --Kinu 07:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok cool, other than that, why is this page being conidered for deletion in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.73 (talk • contribs)

81.98.65.35 07:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Keep this page up![reply]

  • Weak keep I hadnt heard of this guy before and i found the article fairly interesting. An 18 year old releasing a claymation movie that apparently grossed over $30k must be fairly notable, no? But the articles are full of unsourced rubbish, so meh. -- jeffthejiff 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice, non-notable, meatpuppetry and threats to violate policy further. --Malthusian (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I actually do know who Knox is. I've seen acouple of his movies about a year ago, but my friends at school are always qouting his new video's. So i say that this page is indeed notable. 172.145.175.36
  • so abunch of people all around the world, who dont know him personally and have NEVER talked to him, yet still knowing about his work dosn't make him notable? the guy has atleast 2 million fans, i think he deserves a article. Why wouldnt he? That "notability" thing even said something about the person needing to have atleast 5000 fans, or have sold 5000 CD's(in his case, DVD's)..the guy has sold over 6000 copies of his movie....and this is a 18 year old guy (who started when he was 15). I think that is amazing. -Brady Lowery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.203 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete as {{db-repost}}. Stifle 11:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify under what name was the article formerly created and deleted. Neither Villain (Knox movie) nor Knox (animator) have any deleted history. Also please note that speedy deletion of an article doesn't automatically make its re-creation a speedy deletion candidate (unless the new version meets speedy deletion criteria), and a re-created article after "Proposed deletion" is excluded from speedy deletion for that reason, or from nomination for {{prod}} once again. No vote. - Mike Rosoft 18:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so let me make my vote explicit. Delete, unless the claim that he had made 50,000 dollars on one of his movies is verified/referenced, in which case I'll change my vote to weak keep and cleanup. - Mike Rosoft 10:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! This guy is a major geek icon. His works ARE notable. I mean, King of the Portal? 5 times? On Newgrounds? Having the most Top 50 movies on Flashplayer? Not to mention the fact that he's put out a DVD that's made truckloads of cash? Admittedly, this article needs a bit of a tune-up, but it still should be kept! This guy is an internet VIP! But, by all means, delete the Villain page. Sincerely, 67.173.8.132 21:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Knox may not be famous or important in the real world, but he is definitly internet famous. I think it is reasonable for him to have a single page about himself, his works, and how he creates them. On the otherhand I think the Villian page should go.
  • Keep user: Rob Meehan 5:28pm, 7 Feb. 2006. What's the point of deleting the article, sure, it needs clean-up, but you don't to be a bitch and delete it. Knox is famous on the interent, and of all things, deserves a wikipedia page. His movies are known all over the internet. I don't think this is a "waste of space", as some of you keep bitching.
  • Keep He is internet famous. --Siva1979Talk to me15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Holy crap, Villain isn't just a stupid internet movie, it is a Napolean Dynamite style movie, a real movie. Knox will one day be a pro film maker (independent thoiugh). He deserves a pge and a Villain page. DELETE DUMB kLAY WORLD OTT PAGE THOUGH? HOW MADE THAT!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.154.215 (talk • contribs)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 consensus that article should not exist as standalone; no consensus as to whether it should be deleted or merged, therefore merge. Babajobu 03:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leets

gamecruft, put up for prod, but template deleted, so here we are on afd -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right, when I pick up an encyclopedia I love finding cruft-ridden crap in it... anyway, based on length, content, notability of subject and number of people familiar with / likely to be interested in the subject, comparing Goombas and Leets is impossible. ++Deiz 12:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps comparing these to goombas is a bit over the top. I still don't see why they should be deleted instead of merged. - Mgm|(talk) 22:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So merge... I do take exception to the fact that just because WP is a web-based entity people accept that WebCruft is more acceptable for inclusion... ++Deiz 00:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Comparison of image viewers. Babajobu 03:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of image viewers

Delete Redundant to (and less comprehensive than) Category:Image viewers. Only two redlinks, of questionable notability. Karnesky 02:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, per MacGyverMagic. The comparison is missing: Thumbsplus (non-notable?), GThumb, imgSeek, and Xv. The cat might have others worth adding to the comparison --Karnesky 15:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merged all but Thumbsplus. Not convinced of notability. Please redirect if AfD goes that way. --Karnesky 21:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The GFDL requires us to retain the edit history for all the material we have. If we retain the content, we are not allowed to delete the edit history at its earlier location. - Mgm|(talk) 22:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as non-notable biography.--Alhutch 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Gondek

Delete: Self-Promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveblack (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, word for word recreation. Shanel 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bellerock entertainment

Article was deleted on 23rd January. I don't have access to deleted articles, but from memory this is very close to being a recreation. It's also very loaded with positive spin - spam, I would say. Delete, speedy if it's a recreation. kingboyk 02:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Darboux

This is an entry on an academic with no indication that he is particularly eminent in his field, thus failing the guideline for biographies. A cursory Google search gives no indication of prizes won or wide recognition in the field; many hits are in fact for Wikipedia mirrors.

The article states that Michel has a few papers and patents under his belts, but academics publish papers and submit patents, that (and administration) being the work of an academic and all that.

The article talk page says that the article was created after a request on Wikipedia:Requested articles/mathematics. There is a Gaston Darboux on the Mathematics Genealogy Project, though, and it may be possible that the requester just mixed up the name. Pilatus 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the page you cite is neither policy nor guideline and was written by a single user less than two weeks ago. Monicasdude 22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as BJAODN-trolling, utter nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 03:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al qaeda number three

Seems like it was made for a BJAODN. Karmafist 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Baptist College

This is an ad for Baptist schools and is unencyclopedic. Any relevant data should be merged with Independent Baptist, otherwise it is not neccessary to promote Baptist schools and explain that Baptist schools deal with Baptist beliefs. Of course, if you get a strictly Baptist education at a Baptist college, your career oppotunities are going to be limited to the Baptist ministry; no need to have an article listing schools to explain that. Unless more information is added to make this article informative, it should be deleted. Arbustoo 03:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Bible college article, the List of Bible colleges, and the Independent Baptist article that mentions all the schools/groups affilated, which already cover that. Arbustoo 09:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not describe "post-secondary education related to a denomination." In fact, if you read it carefully "independent Baptist" simply means "independent" of main Bapitist ministry. Therefore, this article encompasses any broad Christian/fundamentalist/Baptist, as the article notes with "Bob Jones University"-- which is not Baptist. The Jesuit education article is a good one that describes a particular denomination. This article does not describe a denomination. My assertation is that the article is so broad it is worthlessly undescriptive since "independent" Baptist is NOT a denomination. The Jesuit article is perfect criteria to follow and this article falls far short of that. Arbustoo 04:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a merge with Independent Baptist? Arbustoo 02:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but a merge decision has nothing to do with deletion, because you can't merge an article without keeping it. A redirect has to remain so the history of the article is available per the GFDL license. —Cleared as filed. 05:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on clean up edits: Logophile, your edits are exactly why this is nominated. You reinserted the Bob Jones University claim. BJU is not Baptist. BJU is fundamentalist Christian, which can encompass Baptists, but the school doesn't strictly profess to be Baptist, let alone "independent Baptist." Once again, this article is a non-existent topic. Arbustoo 07:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure does. Arbustoo 04:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JzG, more Gastroturfing. --Malthusian (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It's poorly written and of rather dubious origins, but as of the lastest edit, I don't really see anything warrenting deletion. I'd rename the article Independent Baptist Colleges though. At least it isn't another article about a private elementary school.--Isotope23 18:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bible college which is, I believe, the more common term. Fishal 21:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • A Bible college is different than the Independent Baptist Colleges. A Bible college generally would have a much narrower curriculum, with more specific training for ministerial careers. The colleges described in this article, while preparing most for ministerial careers, may offer a broader education, providing a independent Baptist setting and also providing other areas of study - for example Tennessee Temple University offers a majors in biology and in mathematics. —ERcheck @ 22:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where are you getting this information? Melchoir 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment not meant to be controversial. I did a review of some of Bible colleges offerings of majors and then offerings of of independent Baptist colleges (IBC). Some of the IBCs are "Bible" colleges, while some have more general offerings. Point was that there is a difference. Some IBC are Bible colleges, while some are not. The "Bible colleges" terminology that I am referencing is that being used in the Wikipedia article Bible college. —ERcheck @ 00:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find no evidence on Google that such a thing as an "Independent Baptist College" even exists. You seem to have information I'm not aware of, and I'm genuinely curious. How do you determine what is an IBC and what isn't? Is it your personal judgement or what? Melchoir 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did a Google search on <Independent Baptist College>. The third entry was http://bn66.com/churches/schools.html. Google search on <Independent Baptist> provides a number of sites with links. —ERcheck @ 01:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • See, my problem is, I've clicked on a bunch of those links, and most of the schools do not identify themselves as "independent" anything. West Coast and Crown do call themselves "Independent Baptist College", but how do we know what that means to them? With the AJCU there's a verifiable thread connecting the schools; here, I see no such tool. Without some kind of secondary literature specifically addressing Independent Baptist Colleges, I don't see how we can write an article here. Melchoir 01:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly. Arbustoo 04:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no problem with each school having and article, but this one is not needed. 03:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Does this not come under the wikipedia schools policy? Jcuk 08:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful topic. Nothing to do with schools, this is a type of tertiary education institution, not as religiously-focused as a "bible college" (mentioned above) but not secular like an ordinary university. --bainer (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Chuck_Hastings (talk · contribs)
Meatpuppet sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich. [4] Also second edit ever on Wikipedia is this vote.Arbustoo 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to bet Jason Gastrich sent you here like on the other AfDs. Please explain what is "helpful" about it, that is, what criteria is it describing? How many schools mentioned in the article actually define themselves as "Independent Baptist" (I know the answer)? The how many call themself an "Independent Baptist College"(different from the previous question)? Explain how/why this is "important"? What is the criteria (other than the name) for an "Independent Baptist College," no one has said this and its absent from the article. Arbustoo 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. The list could be replaced by a category for those listed articles of value, I think, which should satisfy those few wanting the article kept. I have discounted the opinions of User:Royboycrashfan (because the list doesn't have to be a list of external links, it could be replaced with redlinks as one user suggested), User:Jcuk (because he made no argument) and User:Yuckfoo (because he made no argument). Anyone wishing to hurl rotten tomatoes presumably knows how. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of independent Baptist colleges

Small list of schools linked to external sources, which are already available at List of Bible colleges and Category:Seminaries and theological colleges, which makes this redundant. Plus there is a separate article for Bible college. There is no need to have these articles, which have the same material. Arbustoo 03:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty redundant given the category and list mentioned by the nominator, and hardly expandable to something worth keeping. --Kinu 03:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the caveat that we replace the external links with red links. Nine of the school have Wikipedia articles. The content of this list isn't covered by List of Bible colleges because that list doesn't not the denomination a particular school is affiliated with. The same holds true with Category:Seminaries and theological colleges. I could be convinced to delete if a category was created, in the vein of Category:Roman Catholic universities and colleges in the United States.
They are already listed by religious criteria twice over and in other ways too. Also it is "independent" Baptist, which is different than "Baptist." Should all different Baptists get separate lists too? Arbustoo 09:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ERCheck registered February 3rd. Arbustoo 02:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbustoo - I don't know what your point is in the above comment. But, in fact, I registered in October 2005. It is "ERcheck", not ERCheck (which is not a registered user name). You registered in January 2006. How is that relevant to this AfD? —ERcheck @ 02:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I read the wrong article entry. As for your claim; a "Jesuit school" entails a easily defined group. Indepedent Baptists are not a particular sect, but simply have no affliation. The analogy you put forth does not hold water. As for "Independent Baptist is different that Baptist as Jesuit is different that Roman Catholic," you might want to re-read what an independent Baptist is. A Jesuit is a denomination. Catholic is a denomination. Baptist is a denomination. An indepedent Baptist is still a Baptist, just one that does not have ties to the main organization. That is why this list is AfD. Arbustoo 04:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments about accreditation. I don't think it is relevant one way or another that many of these schools are not accredited. They are religious schools. Many religious schools choose not to go through the accreditation process, because they wish to remain independent, not necessarily because they are diploma mills. This group of Baptists is VERY independent, so it is not surprising that these schools are not accredited. Even for them to join the Southern Baptist Convention would be for them a form of compromise. H2O 00:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See World Baptist Fellowship. (by the way, their Arlington Baptist College, IS accredited) The articles do need improvement, but not deletion. H2O 00:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article doesn't exist. We're calling it list of... for a reason. Please see the Wikipedia naming conventions. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Typo on my part. Fixed, above. -- Karnesky 21:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colby Nolan? Arbustoo 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Gastrich sent you to AfDs in the past and I think this might be the same situation (the reason is his sock puppet has been floating around-- see Independent Baptist College). You copy and pasted your post from Independent Baptist College AfD vote... as you can tell without punctuation, the exact wording is the same, and no capitalization. But anyway, explain how this list fits Wikipedia criteria. Why is it "important"? What makes it helpful (considering it links mostly to schools that do not have accreditation or wikipedia articles)? Arbustoo 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell oliver

Non-notable Avi 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: A7. Doesn't even begin Weak delete. On the fence, but leaning toward delete at the moment. Tries to assert notability, but probably doesn't meet WP:BIO. Hard to say based on Fuhghettaboutit's research. Sounds like the "Federated" guy who bashed in the TVs (boy, I just dated myself), except only of local interest. --Kinu 03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC); amended Kinu 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you want added to it? He's very notable in Toronto and the surrounding area. --iansmcl
  • Delete local color, every town has one of these guys Ruby 03:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a cult figure in the town, which according to wikipedia's tutorial on bios is okay. --iansmcl 03:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Fence. He seems to enjoy some degree of fame, at least in Toronto. See:

[5] [6] [7].I would have to research more to see where on WP:BIO he falls. --Fuhghettaboutit 03:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was The result of the discussion was to delete the article. Croat Canuck 02:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron McKay

Delete. Looks like a nn bio to me, probably created by Cameron McKay. A search for his company gets less than 150 hits and even a search for the somewhat common name gets under 1000. Mrtea (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus for deletion - 21 votes to delete or transwiki, 14 votes to keep. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/RuneScape skills for a summary of the votes counted towards this determination. Please work together in reducing and merging these articles to the extent that such is a practicable solution. BD2412 T 20:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape skills

The total list is:

RuneScape skills
RuneScape locations
RuneScape dungeons
RuneScape quests
RuneScape runes
RuneScape economy
RuneScape items
RuneScape gods
RuneScape random events
Castle Wars
Kalphite Queen
Dagannoth
TzHaar Fight Cave

Delete All as fancruft, these should be merged into the the RuneScape article then deleted Prodego talk 03:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, I do not mean merge all the content into the main article, I mean, anything that is deserving of mention in the main article (i.e. RuneScape skills), should be mentioned. Most of these articles topics are adequately covered in the main article, and some should just be deleted as they are unimportant to the game(i.e. Castle Wars, Kalphite Queen, and Dagannoth) anything that should be covered can be summarized in the main article, we do not need a 600+ word article on the Kalphite Queen for example. Prodego talk 19:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fancruft is not a reason to delete. Please explain what makes this supposedly unencyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 10:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOT an FAQ, game guide, or a free host. WP:IS an encyclopedia, and this information belongs on a game help site, not an encyclopedia. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbiter stuff Prodego talk 02:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep You just cant merge these into the RS article. It would make it far too long! All these articles are useful, and many have already been cleaned up to make them into great articles. RuneScape is a major game, and these articles provide a great deal of useful information. They are merged in to general articles, and the RS series has been greatly improved in the last few months, with economy being almost completely re-written to meet standards, quests actually re-written to turn it from a game guide into a useful and factual database of quests, and every other article has either been cleaned up or is in the process. A lot of work has gone into these and I see them all as good articles that should definately be kept - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most, or transwiki before deleting - To merge would mean enormous pages (though some may be reasonable merges) - to delete would be an insult to all who provided content and edits - if they must be savagely curtailed, please aid in transwiki to RuneScape Wiki - some re-edit, movement of images etc would be required, though it would avoid the waste of deletion or massive cutbacks in a merge. Ace of Risk 17:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify to be more factual/to the point this would probably be fully possible. Cutting out the guide bits with information/guides to players, and keeping in information about the game itself. Clq 21:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. These articles can be edited down. Let's try that first before just deleting them all. Cruft can be removed, you don't need to kill encycloepdic content for that. - Mgm|(talk) 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's it to you if we have them here? They don't break any solid rules, there are similar articles about other games, and I feel that they are necessary. The people who want them deleted obviously really hate RuneScape.Dtm142 23:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, we put a lot of work into those! And now the anti-RuneScape/Deletionist community wants to throw it all away/merge it all into one or several oversized articles that will hopefully only take one minute to load on the next Windows computer. Dtm142 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The articles here contain a vast and helpful amount of information and resources. Game guides are not encyclopedia material?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gin_rummy

I then petition the removal of the rules of Gin rummy in the Gin rummy article, such rules can be found on external sites very easily, just as you all have proposed for RuneScape.

Take your arguments into consideration folks. Keep all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.126.56 (talk • contribs)

Quote from WP:NOT(What Wikipedia is not) "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes."
It is valid for RuneScape fans, and all available on RuneScape sites, such as this one, but Wikipedia is encyclopedia NOT a game guide for RuneScape fans. Prodego talk 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for RuneScape fans. I'm glad that this information is all available somewhere else, thus proving it is not original research. Kappa 03:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it all. Is it hurting anyone to keep it here? People put work into making those pages what they are and I find them very helpfull as I play RuneScape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.178.45 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep (some) or Transwiki. RuneScape is becoming a very large article (65K at time of writing). There needs to be somewhere for elaborations to spill into. At the very least, merging the RuneScape series articles into RuneScape would result in an incredibly huge article, even if all the "guide-like" stuff was thrown away. However, I do agree that some RuneScape articles, such as the ones concerning individual enemies (or specific classes of enemies), are non-encyclopedic and do not belong in Wikipedia. Also, one of these days I'm going to go through the RuneScape article to move out all the guide-like stuff. It would be nice to have somewhere to move that stuff to. Someone42 09:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the RuneScape Wikicity, or to Wikibooks, or Wikisource. Wikipedia is not a how-to or game guide. Stifle 11:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The pages are spilted, as the article RuneScape is too large. no point on remerging them. if the articles are informative, there is no point of delete as a pedia, unless highly offensive materials included. RuneScape Items and RuneScape Skills is questioned to be inculde in this area, it is heavily crossed linked to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gspbeetle (talk • contribs)

Why do you want to delete these pages? At least just make a game guide wiki or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 February 2006

  • Weak keep. I am not interested in RuneScape at all, and I've seen all these articles mauled badly, both by vandals and well-meaning but inept editing. They are certainly very high-maintenance, and a magnet for fancruft. It does seem, however, like there is too much legitimate, encyclopedic content on RuneScape to fit in a single article. For this reason, I'd prefer it if the articles were kept, and were cleaned up to meet Wikiepdia's standards. --Ashenai 09:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insignificant articles. As all RuneScape players should know, the game site has its own forum, which would be clearly more suitable and more attractive to RuneScape players wanting to know something about the game. Much of the information in the pages are available in-game as well, meaning that posting articles specifically on skills and quests seems to be redundant. As a RuneScape player myself, I do not pay much attention to articles and simply "pick up" on the game information while playing. --Yunzhong Hou 14:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure? Prodego talk 16:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little disingenuous, as on the 6th, people were advised NOT to comment there and, instead, to come here to comment. --Habap 18:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's VERY disingenuous. Move them all to wikibooks:RuneScape, delete them from here and you can make all the articles as long as you like. JanesDaddy 20:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the way to go. Transwiki then delete Prodego talk 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Dtm142 23:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, if merged it would be far to long and strung out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.117.44 (talk • contribs)
  • Transwiki These should be transwiki to wikicities and then deleted. No matter how much we try to control it, new articles just keeping showing up everywhere with tons of faq-like information. It would be better to force it into a single article that vaguely describes the game. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego talk notes the edit count ONLY of those who disagree with his nomination - if high or low counts are relevant, they are also relevant to the experience or lack of for those who support the nomination. Now if a disinterested party was noting lack of experience, it would be fair, but it appears that the nominator is seeking only to negate the views of those who are anything other than deletionist. Some work is needed, sure, but deletion would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The coverage of some areas is excessive, particularly in "list all" sections of the main article, and rebalancing with the series pages would be better than stuffing the main article. Ace of Risk 13:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all users with less then 300 edits have been marked. The reason I note the edit count at all is because people may be directed here from a RuneScape forum or such, and asked to "vote". Note that this isn't a vote, but a disscussion. Prodego talk 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person with 1 vote has stated their opinion in the exact same way as everyone else. Frankly, I dont think it matters too much how many edits someone has. It doesnt take 2000 edits to realise that merging all these articles into 1 will create a complete mess. Now please state the edits counts of people on both sides, or nobody - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodego, as an admin you're supposed to be unbias. The way you have handled this so far has been quite bias. J.J.Sagnella 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the page for deletion, so how could I be unbiased? Also, I am not an administrator. Thirdly, I did state the edit count for all users with less then 300 edits, regardless of how they voted. And finally, users with very low editcounts likly haven't read the policies of Wikipedia. I do not think these articles should be merged anymore, but transwikied instead. Prodego talk 18:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah Prodego, don't be so biased. No, we know that you're not an admin, but you want to be one according to your user page. Dtm142 18:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yeah, don't be so...whoops, sorry. Don't know what cameover me. Transwiki to RuneScape wiki. Failing that, delete. RasputinAXP talk contribs 20:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all fancruft for nn game.  Grue 
  • Keep All --Siva1979Talk to me 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Runecraft is a very notable game. These articles, while somewhat different, are very similar to several other series of books or games that have multiple articles. How many hundreds or thousands of articles exist for the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. To dismiss these articles as pure fancruft doesnt hold much weight when compared to how many minor articles have been created for other series like LOTR. If we're going to get rid of these articles, a serious look into similar series articles will also have to be taken. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. ScottyBoy is right. Objectively we can't look at the game as a fringe piece, because there are a lot of players out there. And so if we treat this similar to other major works, most notably the LOTR series, a serious change to the format of ALL these works would be necessary. Quote Prodego: "And finally, users with very low editcounts likly haven't read the policies of Wikipedia." This is my first edit ever. But I have read the rules on several occaisions and use wikipedia almost daily in my studies. Thanks for your vote of confidence in the less-vocal among us.

--Loadtoad419 02:16, 11 February 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/Category:Wikipedians who are fans of American Idol

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. moink 01:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Chi Alpha

There have been many articles on Wikipedia wherein a fraternity or sorority has written an individual chapter and the article has been subsequently deleted.
Refer to

If one looks at this proposed article for deletion it is very well written and done in a manual style fitting Wikipedia, however I don't see this as a strong point as to why this article should stay. There already exists an article where Dartmouth fraternities and sororities are described. (Dartmouth College Greek organizations). So why is there a need to have a seperate article for each fraternity chapter? It seems like an overkill. Granted, these chapters are old and notable but then again there are quite literally hundreds if not thousands of chapters of any national fraternity which bear the same characteristic. What's to prevent the floodgates from opening and have many individuals use Wikipedia as some de facto free web service such as geocities.com to advertise their greek chapters?

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason listed above:

  • Keep - The references you describe are to individual chapters of national fraternities. However, these are local fraternities without association to any national organization. They also all have significance to the campus. Phi Tau was the first coed house and one of the early fraternities on campus. Kappa Kappa Kappa was even the second local fraternity in the nation. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 03:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Smith120bh. The arguments against the pages you reference are that they are chapters of national organizations. The same cannot be said of Phi Tau, Kappa Kappa Kappa, or Alpha Chi Alpha. They are indeed old and notable, as Dysepsion has already conceded, but he is in error when he suggests that there are hundreds or thousands of chapters bearing the same characteristic. They are unique. Tri-Kap is the 2nd oldest fraternity in the country. Phi Tau was the first coed fraternity at Dartmouth College, all the more notable given the initial acrimony when the College first integrated. Given that the primary argument for deletion was based on the erroneous presumption that these articles refer to one chapter out of hundreds or more, when in fact, these are unique organizations, I ask that the articles on Phi Tau, Kappa Kappa Kappa, and Alpha Chi Alpha be kept. --Jedsa 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What I don't understand is why are there seperate articles for these fraternities when one describes them already exists? (Dartmouth College Greek organizations). Also, is the fact that they are "local" the only saving characteristic to keep these articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysepsion (talk • contribs) .
Comment (relevant precedents) - Dartmouth College student groups has a number of relevant precedents here, where sections were moved out of that article into their own article. Dartmouth College Marching Band (which has AfD-decided keep precedents amongst it and other Ivy League marching bands), Dartmouth Jack O'Lantern was given its own article (and has passed AfD proposals I think twice now). Collis Center. The Dartmouth (also passed an AfD). And the fact that they are local is a factual statement that your proposal has erred with. The organizations have historical campus significance that has been briefly summarized already by me and other voters. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 04:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phi Delta Alpha in which a Dartmouth fraternity which had a seperate article was merged. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 08:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Phi Tau article contains numerous verifiable citations.--Kharker 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with several of the above comments regarding the fact that this is a unique and local fraternity, as opposed to a national fraternity with dozens or hundreds of chapters. In addition, one should consider the history and interesting name as facts that add to its value. 23:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with many of the statements above concerning the uniqueness of local chapter history and individuality. It is important to keep in mind that unlike chapters of national fraternities, local houses are all individually autonomous organizations with networks of alumni that have been accumulating for decades. Each house is individually responsable for uniqiue social, campus, and community service initiatives. To merge these articles (not to mention delete them), would be a misrepresentation of the Dartmouth greek system and the greek system as a whole. 18:30, 8 February 2006
  • Keep Most of the above make a good point, but I see no reason not to allow a unique, individual house its own page. Though the metaphor is not entirely correct, it would be like deleting an individual church and just lumping it into the "Church" category. If it is, indeed, a truly unique environment, let it stay.
  • Keep- Alpha Chi deserves it's own page. it's a local fraternity and it's sweet. keep it please.
  • Keep - I agree with Smith120bh-- there is NO national chapter of Alpha Chi Alpha. It is a very unique house with it's own history; much of the information unique to this organization would have no place under the general Dartmouth Greek organizations entry. Alpha Chi Alpha has been written up in the New York Times magazine for its history and tradition. --Zach Mayer
  • Strong Keep --Siva1979Talk to me15:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certification of voting machines

There is a lot of information in this article; however, there is very little context. Further, the information looks like there may be some copyright issues; however, I was unable to find this information on the referenced website. James084 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote, see below. - Mgm|(talk) 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I routinely tag these articles with clean up tags even if they are on AfD. This way if they survive AfD they will appear on the various cleanup lists for further attention. I don't think that the fact that an article is tagged as cleanup automatically gives it a pass to stay. This article, as it is written right now, has little or no context. Also, the fact that an article is on AfD does not preclude it from being cleaned up. If somebody can turn this article into something useful I am sure that everyone that has voted for delete would be willing to reconsider their vote. James084 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No evident copyright issues; quoted materials apparently sourced from non-copyrighted US govt publications. Since the subject is notable, and the nominator describes the article as containing "a lot of information," there seem to be no grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 15:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please keep my comments in context. I said there is a lot of information; however, no context. The reason the article is being nominated is a lack of context, not that it does not contain any information. James084 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And my point, which you're not responding to, is that that's not a reason for deletion under the applicable Wikipedia policy. Monicasdude 15:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_6&oldid=38412065"