Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Harro5 (talk | contribs) at 07:14, 20 February 2006 (+Adrian Khoo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< February 19 >

Purge server cache

February 20

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bozicevic Juraj

I found this article while cleaning out speedies. There is a substantial assertion of notability, but I cannot verify it as I don't read Croatian. I'm listing as a courtesy for the speedy tagger, so No vote. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:45, 19 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. Shanel 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special Agent Jon Zinger

This set of stories exists only on a personal webpage here http://sajonzinger.tripod.com/ --Ruby 00:05, 20 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. Shanel 00:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hart

Minor actress, a bit player at best. Non-notable. Was prod'ed but the tag removed. Calton | Talk 01:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stars, yes. This is not a star. IMDB is community-edited, I have an IMDB account too, existence of an IMDB profile is not evidence of notability, anyone can add one, contents of that article naming prominent roles in major features, is, since IMDB is pretty good on accuracy. Guy 22:33, 20 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. Shanel 00:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Grafton

This article was created by a GWB vandal. Although it is a televisin show, it has no google hits. It is also POV and all of its links are red (these people all have no Google hits either). There are no references or external links to verify any of this. Little notability is even asserted.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:20, 20 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 redirect to Money. Mailer Diablo 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concept of money

Wiktionary has an entry for concept of money. De-prodded with no other edits or cleanup. James084 01:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not an economist, but I thought it was improperly prodded. It seems like a concept that needs a explanation with examples, context in economic theory etc. It doesn't say on the prod page that you have to make an article perfect when you remove the tag and it seems there is something here that needs more than a dictionary definition. As a mere definition it is pretty useless to a layman, but properly expanded it might be a useful part of Wikipedia's coverage of economics. Calsicol 01:39, 20 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 00:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Fox AX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fox_AX should be deleted. Star Fox Armada was always going to be a GameCube game. Even the articles at the bottom of the page corroborate this. The article offers no proof that there was ever going to be a star fox AX arcade game. They created the name Star Fox AX by stealing it from F-Zero AX. The poster shown as game art was merely an early version of Star Fox Assault for the GameCube, formerly known as Star Fox Armada. The only warrant that this was a arcade game was that it was worked on by Nintendo and Namco, however, Namco's flight sim development team, famous for their work on the Ace Combat series, were always developing this as a GameCube title. Thus, Star Fox AX never existed except in the mind of the persyn who created this Wikipedia page. Some info may be merged with the Star Fox Assault page but it is likely to be redundant. โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowflakePillow (talk โ€ข contribs) 20:29, February 19, 2006

  • Keep, Planet X and Global cooling are now generally agreed to have not materialized, yet both are notable, so that's "How ... something which does not exist [can] be notable". If it was notable in anticipation, it's still notable in causing the notable anticipation. --AySz88^-^ 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Ncsaint 23:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if renamed. Doesn't appear to be a hoax. We have many articles on unreleased games. I'm kind of teetering on whether this will ever get enough verifiable material, but I say we let this live and if the article won't grow much it can be then be merged. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with the important words being "announced but never released." --Jay(Reply) 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a real product in development and is important to the Star Fox series. This project should also be mentioned in the Triforce (arcade system board) article, I'm a little surprised it isn't yet. --Pagrashtak 04:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is anyone who is not a fan of the star fox series in favor of keeping this article? Ncsaint 22:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am a gigantic fan of the Star Fox series, but there is honestly no good proof that this game ever existed. The text of the entry is just generic stuff about the Triforce project. This game was, at best, thought about momentarily by Nintendo. It never got started; it is nowhere near Star Fox 2, and I remain convinced that it never existed. It should not be listed in the Triforce article either, because there is only one sentence anywhere on the entire internet to support its existence, and it was probably just a misunderstanding about Star Fox Assault (formerly Armada) for the GameCube.SnowflakePillow 04:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This IGN article cited seems to spring from a misunderstanding. Namco got the rights to Star Fox, but not for an arcade game. I can concede that perhaps the Star Fox Assault article could use a tiny footnote saying it may have begun as an arcade game on triforce hardware, but the name "Star Fox AX" certainly has no basis. Most of this article is mere summary discussing Triforce hardware, and there is only one sentence of "proof" from a conjecturing IGN article. There are a bunch more articles, but all that I found cited the IGN article as their basis for their outlandish extrapolations. I move that this article become a tiny footnote in Star Fox Assault so that true Star Fox fans like myself aren't worried that they somehow missed a game. Understand that my dislike for this article doesn't come from the fact that the game was never released; the problem is that unlike Star Fox 2 we have absolutely no information about it, so it just wastes space on Wikipedia. SnowflakePillow 04:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal-ballism, vapourware, non-notable. Take your pick. Ifnord 16:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirected to Jay and Silent Bob by Adrian~enwiki (talk) Avi 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snootchie bootchies

possibly the least notable neologism ever savidan(talk) (e@) 01:33, 20 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French 75 (cocktail)

Wikipedia is not a cookbook. On the other hand, I don't know enough about drinks to say that this isn't a particularly noteworthy one, so I abstain. (Maybe move to wikibooks?) Vanigo 00:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The French 75 has a history to it, which I have found and added, so my vote is to keep this article. GeAm9111

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 club, contact attempt, WP:SNOW and possibly gaming the system. Guy 11:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheggie Party

Speedy Delete - There is already a similar article up for AFD. Same reasons as per in that AFD listed. -- Arnzy | Talk 02:13, 20 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. Shanel 00:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raxis

Non notable. Dragon Valor itself is only a stub. Jtrost (T | C | #) 02:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Shanel 00:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African Caribbean

Delete. This page is just a dictionary definition, and even at that is disputed. It was created Jan. 28 and has not been edited since that date (the dispute tags were added immediately and the creator of the page has not returned to address them.) Srleffler 02:21, 20 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Khalifa

Prodded without comment. Article makes claim of notability as the Dean of the College of Business Administration at the Abu Dhabi University. Problem is that I was unable to verify this claim. I am remaining neutral for now pending further research. James084 02:24, 20 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 request for deletion was retracted by the nominator due to the precedence set in more recent Olympic games whereby every participating country, regardless of the number of participants, receives its own page. joturner 02:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand at the 2002 Winter Olympics

This article has no potential whatsoever. Thailand only sent one athlete to the 2002 Olympics; this clearly doesn't deserve its own page. joturner 02:33, 20 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 User withdrew nomination and article will be expanded beyond a dicdef. Avi 01:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting tubule

Wiktionary already has an entry for connecting tubule. De-prodded without comment or further edits. James084 02:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC) I am willing to withdraw my nomination as David Iberri (talk) has graciously volunteered to adopt this article to love. Thanks David!! James084 00:50, 21 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 Proclamation of Neutrality, or merge Proclamation of Neutrality to Neutrality Proclamation (either way is fine). Both articles have slightly contrasting text, so I'm going to apply the merge tags for someone more knowledgeable in the subject matter to perform the merge. --Deathphoenix 05:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Proclamation

Delete, and possibly speedy. Page is redundant with Proclamation of Neutrality. Firestorm 02:47, 20 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. Shanel 00:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H2H Entertainment

Non-notable, only returns 40 hits on Google. Jtrost (T | C | #) 02:54, 20 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 deletion by User:Enochlau Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric wagliardo

Non-notable. Jtrost (T | C | #) 02:56, 20 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 bio. โ€”Cleared as filed. 06:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed El Sherif

Not notable person. The article ia about a media manager in a company and contains only 2 lines.--Wedian 02:53, 20 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. Shanel 00:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitology, Infinitist and Infinity Valued Logic

Neologism, 300 google hits, "manifesto" is on someone's ISP homepage. Was sent to PROD originally, but creator kept removing the prod tags. Delete all. enochlau (talk) 03:00, 20 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, don't move and don't merge. Luigi30 (ฮคฮฑฮปฮบ) 02:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Wikipedia

This has been submitted before, however it was never resolved whether we should keep and merge. I am resubmitting this, and this time I am asking whether it should also be merged. Please comment in the relevant sections. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous

Criticism of Wikipedia was nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was "speedy keep". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/18 October 2005.
Criticism of Wikipedia was nominated for deletion on 2004-12-03. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/2004-12-03.
Criticism of Wikipedia was nominated for deletion on 2005-02-25. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/2005-02-25.

Rename

Keep as is

  • I agree with karmafist. I tried to ask them for some constructive criticism, but they have none. Apparently I was "trolling" using the power of my "hive mind" (and other such personal attacks). With critics like that, we're actually in a pretty good position (they just look - and they are! - unreasonable). For instance, they criticise us for being in the top 10 of clusty.com (Daniel Brandt's recommended search engine) - surely they should be criticising the search engine and not us? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely

  • Delete Somebody can make a user who does NOTHING BUT CRITICISE, and this could be their user page. โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Blah2 (talk โ€ข contribs)

Redirect (please list where)

  • Um. Are you suggesting that our only real reason for wanting to keep the article as-is is to stave off being criticized by criticizing ourselves first, and that it's only by being (at least to some extent) illogical and irrational, only by treating this article preferentially and being biased enough to deal differently with this article than we would with any other article, that we can possibly argue for this article's existence? That's nonsense, I'd argue the same for any Criticism article about a major subject that has had a large number of significant criticisms. We already have a page called Wikipedia:Criticisms, which is a page for the purpose of Wikipedia editors to read over, discuss, and try to address relevant critiques of Wikipedia. The purpose of this article, on the other hand, is for our readers. Many people will no doubt be interested and fascinated to see some of the main criticisms of Wikipedia (and the significant responses)โ€”all the more so, yes, because the page happens to be on Wikipedia, but even if it wasn't, the topic's significant enough that we shouldn't attack such a well-written article. We should do the same thing we do with any other article: try to improve it, fix its biases, bring it up to shape. Endless VfDs don't improve the article, they just lead to us spending more time arguing back and forth, back and forth, then actually working on the article itself (which is, in fact, the case with this article, from what I can see). -Silence 22:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the theory that abuses of WP, and the resultant criticisms, are not prominent or newsworthy? I have to disagree. The Siegenthaler thing was on the front page of the New York Times Week in Review section this week, quite a promiment placement. Clearly, this should be front and center, not something for insiders. It is simply too big to pour into Wikipedia. Seems to me like the consensus here is dead-on. BYT 20:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (please list where)

Comments

  • I'm sick of seeing this thing, frankly. I disagree with this and all other pages titled Criticism of X; I would much rather like to see Evaluations of X or perhaps Critical evaluations of X. Doesn't anybody wonder why we don't have Praise of X or Positive opinions on X articles? Articles like these are ways to exile negative POVs to places where they can do less damage. That has some value, but it's still a poor compromise of our NPOV policy. Opposing viewpoints should be integrated, not separated. These articles attract huge amounts of unverifiable statements and irrelevant fluff as a result of their unquestioning titles.
    That said, I suppose this is just an issue of practicality that is not going to resolve any time soon. Until and if I can finally find the strength to rewrite this thing into Evaluations of Wikipedia and hope it's so great that nobody wants to undo it, I'll leave it alone. JRM ยท Talk 12:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, "Critics" can be quite positive. Unless you mean "Criticasting", which you are doing now, if you ask me (not that anyone did) Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 16:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    With a dictionary in hand, you may be perfectly correct. Looking at the content of these pages, though, it's clear that most editors do not in fact have a dictionary in hand when editing. "Criticism" is a strongly negative term, regardless of what it can mean or ought to mean in a scholarly context. JRM ยท Talk 17:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The distinction doesn't run exactly like that, please stuff the scholarly context back in the closet. "Criticism" and "critic" can be quite neutral, and with words like "bible", "literary", "movie", "theatre", or such in front of them, they are. "Literary criticism" is book reviewing, and "biblical criticism" is about analyzing the bible, not about pointing out weaknesses in it. But "Criticism of X" is negative regardless of context. "Criticism of the bible" would mean pointing out perceived weaknesses in the bible. Therefore, assuming nobody would want to coin a horror like "Wikipedian criticism", a neutral article would indeed need to be called something like "Critical evaluations of Wikipedia". Bishonen | talk 23:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is not the place for solving the problem with this article, since doing so doesn't involve deletion at all.

    See the main discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content_forking#.22Criticism.28s.29_of_....22.

    JRM is exactly right. "Criticism of X" pages are inherently non-neutral, since they only present one side of a debate, contrary to our policy. They are a short route to perennial and unresolvable neutrality disputes. Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticisms of communism, and Criticism of Hinduism all sport neutrality disputes, all because either the scope of the article implies that the only discussion of the subject that exists is negative or the scope of the article inherently advocates the negative point of view. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, the way to resolve this problem is to have a single article that encompasses the entire debate, but this is not a matter for AFD, since deletion is not required in order to achieve this. Just rename or merge the article to a neutral title and expand its scope.

    This should have been discussed on Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia as a simple renaming/merger and refactoring proposal and taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment if there wasn't enough input. Uncle G 17:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that last remark. Which is why I in fact have done this once already. Neither the talk page nor an RFC had any effect, and I strongly suspect nothing short of actually going ahead with the rewrite will. But that's only going to stick if you produce a brilliant article from the start, since otherwise people are going to say you're "acting unilaterally" and "against consensus", which in this case just means you're violating the status quo, and people don't like that. It's pretty hopeless, really. JRM ยท Talk 17:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that "criticism of..." pages are inherently non-neutral. The way to make them neutral, obviously, is to list all the noteworthy criticisms (citing them all), and then to list noteworthy rebuttals to all of those criticisms where they exist (citing them all), and counter-rebuttals if those are noteworthy, etc. "Criticism of..." articles aren't just a place for criticism, they're a place about criticismโ€”the history of criticism of communism, for example, or Christianity, would belong in those articles, not just the criticism itself. The fact that an article is too POVed currently does not mean that the topic is inherently POVed. In this case, all it means is that it's unusually difficult to get the article NPOVโ€”though far from impossible, since many of the "Criticism of..." articles (including this one) don't have NPOV stickers on them. Separating Criticism into its own article is only a "POV fork" if (1) no criticism is mentioned as well on the article's main page, even where appropriate, and (2) no responses to criticism are allowed on the criticism page. Those two requirements may not be satisfied quite yet for some of the pages, but they certainly can be in the future. -Silence 19:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice idea in theory (and I do not believe in "inherently non-neutral" articles either), but the point-counterpoint style is not a very good instance of NPOV either. I am not convinced that criticism of any topic (as opposed to critical evaluations, which is not quite the same thing) should be separated, when endorsement, encouragement or neutral reactions never get split off. In most cases the criticism of a topic is not interesting in and of itself, but in context of the topic. The present structure encourages articles of the form "Topic. X, Y and Z. Oh, but Criticism of Topic." "Criticism of Topic. X is bogus, Y is bogus, Z is bogus." It should be "Topic. X, but maybe X is bogus. Y, but maybe Y is bogus. Z, but maybe Z is bogus." The individual parts can get separate articles again, but it should be unusual and undesirable for (unqualified) criticism to be a topic in and of itself. It makes things unnecessarily hard and obscures the broad picture. It's an easy way to split up an article, but I'd argue it's a suboptimal one. JRM ยท Talk 19:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the articles caught up in previous edit wars -- especially religious articles -- seemed to settle down after a "Criticism of..." section was created. (Examples: Criticism of Prem Rawat, Scientology controversy.) The reasoning here seemed to satisfy both the proponents and opponents of the "critics" of these groups. Those who wanted to place negative information about the groups were generally content that they were able to keep their information and links in the spotlight, with prominent links to their article on the main page; meanwhile, supporters of the groups in question were largely free to add their own information to the main page while letting the critics have their say in the "criticism" article. --Modemac 13:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that this will help stop edit wars for controversial topics. It is a compromise, a truce of sorts, a way to prevent you from having to face the harsh and complex demands of NPOV. Splitting up an article in an unbiased/pro part and a contra part is not neutral. Our job is not to keep editors con\tent, but to provide an integral story to our readers. Basically, NPOV is hard, tough noogies. Why not Criticism of George W. Bush? Sure would cool some edit wars. No. That's Wikinfo's modus operandi, not ours. By doing this we give up, saying "maybe NPOV is just impossible/not worth it".
And besidesโ€”we're talking Wikipedia here, not religion. Do we really think Wikipedia editors will be unable to exercise restraint when faced with criticism of "their" encyclopedia? I value us a little higher than that, really. JRM ยท Talk 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Like in religion, some will be able to exercise restraint and others will not. I'll have you know I'm a "religious" person. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And we have plenty of Bush supporters too, I wager. My comment was not directed at particular groups or individuals. I trust my implication that some topics will attract more and more heated conflicts than others is not challenged. Wikipedia is special because it's personal too all of us, and because it is, we should respect NPOV even more than for other topics if we want any hope of looking good. JRM ยท Talk 15:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True, just wanted to point this out. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community ownership

Wikitionary already has an entry for community ownership James084 03:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update. When I checked earlier this evening Wiktionary did, in fact, have an entry for community ownership. This entry does appear to have been deleted. Therefore my nomination as stated above is no longer valid. However, I will nominate on the grounds that this is a dictdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For now I am remaining neutral on the subject. I would like to see if the article can be expanded to something besides the dictdef that it currently is. James084 03:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ruby. I didn't say I didn't think my nomination was inapplicable. I think it is still a dicdef. I said the original reason for nomination was invalid. James084 14:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code signing

Wiktionary has an entry for code signing. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. James084 03:21, 20 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. Shanel 00:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death of the Party

Delete this article on a webcomic which does not meet WP:WEB guidelines. Article was originally listed as a WP:PROD for lack of reliable sources and failure to meet WP:WEB, but PROD tag was removed by an editor who "think[s] it is notable enough especially since it's recognized by a Wikiproject." However, being tagged by our webcomics wikiproject isn't a notability statement; unless they somehow fall through the cracks, all webcomics-related articles are part of our webcomics wikiproject. And the article still has no reliable sources (I've been unable to find any in google or nexis) and still does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 03:28, 20 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. Shanel 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Romana (Music)

Delete โ€” Fails WP:MUSIC, Not notable. โ€”ย Billย W.ย (Talk)ย (Contrib)ย ย โ€“ย ย Februaryย 20,ย 2006,ย 03:29ย (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as a non-notable organization. --InShaneee 04:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Untouchables (Kingdom of Loathing Clan)

Non-notable gaming clan. Prod tag was removed User:71.36.120.106 Cnwb 03:36, 20 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. Shanel 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Swingy

This was originally prodded without comment. It appears to be a neologism and does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. James084 03:38, 20 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. Shanel 00:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tal' Nerinn

Probably fan fiction. Google search shows nothing relating to this guy. Delete. BryanG 03:40, 20 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. Shanel 00:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Poll Land

Non-notable gaming community. Prod tag was removed by User:71.253.55.228 Cnwb 03:49, 20 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. Shanel 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Girl

The vast majority of this article is an attack of a San Francisco stereotype, and as such violates WP:NPOV. Verifiability of the content is limited as well, unless a rant posted to Craigslist counts. I'm skeptical that the article could be rewritten in a way that would be encylopedic and NPOV. The essay used to be a part of the Marina District, San Francisco, California; given the number of bloggers that were so enchanted by that content appearing in Wikipedia, I anticipate a strong showing of meatpuppets. OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would infact vote to keep it and overhaul it, possibly myself, if any of the references referred to the subject matter in question. So, I vote delete in spite of the numerous pejorative terms that exist out there and are NPOV. -- Greaser 06:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good point. Wigger and Yuppie are good examples of how articles about a stereotype can be reasonably encylopedic and sourced. This is probably too isolated to have any chance of verifiability. A search limited to "sfgate.com" returns two articles; one mentioning the term in passing, the other talking about the description that used to be in the Marina District, San Francisco, California article. I couldn't find anything in the Guardian or Examiner. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References added which discuss Marina stereotypes from SFWeekly and Guardian. Still very local to San Francisco.
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-verifiable per nom, and comments by Ohnoitsjamie are on-target re difference between this and a term in wide use like 'yuppie'. --Lockley 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NPOV violation. This article seems more of a bitter rant than an encyclopaedic essay on the subject. ย (aeropagitica)ย  07:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this rant becomes a socio-psychological phenomenon of standing it could be encyclopedic - but it is not even close to that now. VirtualSteve 08:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV with no significant verification that there really are such things as Marina girls --Ruby 14:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and enter now one of the inconsistencies of Wikipedia. Marina Girl strikes me as an insufficiently notable neologism because it's colloquial and unlikely to spread -- ie, it loses meaning away from the marina & SF. Also, I'm from SF, and have never heard it. That said, if this were an Internet colloqualism, we might elect to keep it, because terms on the net can be just as niche, but cross a broader strata of readers and users because of the noncentralized nature of such. This is something we'll have to figure out how to work with eventually. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as complete bollocks. Guy 22:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm pretty sure that this just got run through a previous AfD very recently (last week?), and got deleted (note that it's recreated in the last couple of days). I'm sure digging around can locate the ref. Georgewilliamherbert 23:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Not a WP member, not author, not affiliated, no vested interest) Anecdotalย : This is a very common term with my social circle (No, not Mission District! Not even SF.). Unless it's being included in travel guides though, it will lose relevance beyond the SF Bay Area. I don't see a huge difference between Marina Girl and Essex Girl wrt concept. Essex girl (looks like this is an expansion on Essex Girl - clearly one of these needs editing) is a specialization of Chav and Dumb blonde, as Marina Girl is a specialization of Yuppie. The Chronicle or Examiner wouldn't dare address this phenomenon by name - their readership levels are already dangerously low, and that would probably lose them 10% of their readers. More references would better the article, I agree. Please, visit the Marina. It's funny.
  • I have a few links for consideration (for varifiability purposes)ย :

SF Weekly [5] San Francisco Magazine [6] and a SF Chronicle article that uses the term [7] Calbearspolo 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Calbearspolo[reply]

  • KEEP - This explanation of Marina Girl holds true not just for SF, but any area near the water including westside areas of Los Angeles (Santa Monica, Venice, Manhattan and Hermosa Beach, Orange County in general) and San Diego. The writer of this article is so accurate it's scary. I wager that most of the people who want this removed is because it hits too close to the truth....and they can't handle the truth...or laugh at life.

โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.98.50 (talk โ€ข contribs) 2006-02-24 11:27:42


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Shanel 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SILVANO TOGNERI

ย  ATTENTION!

If you think people came to this page because a friend asked them to do so, or because they saw a message on an online forum asking them to do so, please note that this is not the case.

Posting notices about ballot stuffing is presumptuous. If you find credible evidence of ballot stuffing, by all means please share.

Non-notable bio. James084 04:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete From listening to the mp3, seems to be Italy's (non-notable) answer to Wesley Willis.OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. fungi hunter? seem extrememly local. nn. pschemp | talk 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A fungi hunter that has mushroomed - wow if these editors put the same effort into encyclopedic articles - oh what colour would be added. But for now well this article printed would make good compost. VirtualSteve 08:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although this name has 19K google hits at first glance, 18900 of them disappear if you -site:barganews.com. Thus, notability, if any, is very local. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Adrian --Ruby 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Adrian's fun Google results. Notability is, shall we say, dubious. Lord Bob 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Short sightedness to Outsider Art is a common position that many easily take without starting to understand the first principle concept of its foundation. Far from non/notable Silvano has international acclaim from leading Jazz composers. Wikipedia is about knowledge of all for all. Not knowledge fascim by a few close minds dictating content control in order to not understand. Just because YOU don't like or understand his music does not mean others will. Keep this article. --RAW 08:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to User:Rawcut -- I'm open to hearing about verifiable evidence of international acclaim that I might have missed. If you have it, please provide it -- don't just assert that it exists. While we all like to assume good faith, we get people telling us how wrong we are on a regular enough basis that it's impossible to just take it at face value and say "Oh, this guy thinks he's notable? Kept!" We'd never delete anything at that rate. So, I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, but please cite sources if they exist. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unable to verify any claim to notability. Derek from the Frog and Frigate had a successful career based on singing in bars, but he's not notable either. Guy 23:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Silvano Togneri is a musician of great distinction whose adroitness is held in high regard in the international music world. I am not aware of the measuring tools used to determine notability, but I was saddened to see that on Wikipedia, a site I hold in high regard, Togneri's article might be destined for deletion. "Those works created from solitude and from pure and authentic creative impulses - where the worries of competition, acclaim and social promotion do not interfere - are, because of these very facts, more precious than the productions of professions." - Jean Dubuffet. Validusername 23:58, 20 February 2006
Comment There is a fine line between "outsider art" or "art brut" and "exploitation." The exploitation debate surround Wesley Willis as well. However, Willis's verifiable popularity easily satisifies WP:Music, whereas Silvano does not. Furthermore, no one has produced any actual quotes from notable jazz musicians (or anyone else notable) praising Silvano. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I have downloaded a few of his songs and have even met someone whoโ€™s brother has actually seen him live. Yes, he is very outsider but the net is currently buzzing with thousands of remixes of his songs. It has become a sort of internet remix craze. Some of the better mixes have been played in a nightclub in Liverpool. We may end up with one of the remixes being quoted in wiki but not the original!!--Deety 08:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete See Talk:SILVANO_TOGNERI โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Barganews (talk โ€ข contribs)
  • Do Not Delete Wikipedia is about information which is not main stream. The suggestions to delete this entry are on the grounds of taste only. To also suggest deletion of this entry on the grounds of someone's mental ability would also been seen as illegal in many countries. I live in Sofia Bulgaria but I am aware of Silvano Togneri as my brother is a travelling muscian who has played Barga Jazz festival and informed of the wonderful outsider art which is promoted in the Tuscan town of Barga. โ€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.8.60.62 (talkย โ€ขย contribs) .
Comment Wikipedia is based on established notability, which this subject lacks. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:57, 22 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. Shanel 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Brooks

Prodded, removed and replaced with speedy tag, re-prodded in error by me. Not a speedy, although claims to notability are tenous. Link to own site with "can be booked at" smells of advertising. Recomend deltion unless greater claims to notability are shown. brenneman{T}{L} 04:08, 20 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. Shanel 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. Tam sessions

Duplicates material found in the article for the film Serenity and has little chance of growing further. Delete and redirect. - EurekaLott 04:18, 20 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. Shanel 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun 100

Delete. Previously speedy-deleted and subsequently recreated. No mention at Allmusic, Amazon, Google. This band has absolutely no claim to notability. --ย Krashย (Talk) 04:21, 20 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 Robert Moog. Deathphoenix 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moog records

Delete as nonsense, unverifiable, original research. Neologism. --ย Krashย (Talk) 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Moog records. --ย Krashย (Talk) 14:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved relevant text to Robert Moog and I hope interested editors will have a look. I continue to contend that "Moog records" is a protologism. In an attempt to reach consensus, I suggest and support merge and delete. --ย Krashย (Talk) 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the whole article needs to be merged into Robert Moog, but it's worthy of mention (a sentence of two) that the Moog inspired these types of albums for a short period of time. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I interest you in this slightly used copy of Genetic Engineering? โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk โ€ข contribs)
Definitely not, but a redirect to Robert Moog seems sensible. โ€” ciphergoth 00:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a redirect to Andy Moog. I'm sure he holds a few records for goaltending...--Isotope23 14:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, worthwhile content has already been merged. Someone can leave a redirect here to Robert Moog if they are so inclined.--Isotope23 14:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Marudubshinki at 06:41, 20 February 2006 Reason: (fanon.) --lightdarkness (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aloy-Wan Kenobi

This avoids speedy delete only because I don't know enough about Star Wars to be sure there isn't some character with this name. Looks like it's just some kid with a light sabre and severe delusions. DJ Clayworth 04:30, 20 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. Shanel 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The News Line

Notability debated. Moved to AfD. Jaxal1 04:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Apparently this article is "a candidate for speedy deletion" because it may be "an article about a real person or group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7)". I don't know what that pseudolegalistic tripe is supposed to mean (and I don't much care), but Wikipedia cannot be only about things that "are important or significant", for two reasons: firstly, "importance or significance" is a subjective judgement which can't be legislated for in any sane system, and secondly if we still intend to create the greatest encyclopaedia there has ever been then we need articles about everything under the sun, and there are plenty of things under ther sun that aren't important or significant. But never mind that. The need for this article arises because several other articles link here, and the context of the links doesn't always make it clear what News Line actually is. The best way for a reader to find out what The News Line is, is to click on the link and read the stub. Also, this is a very remarkable publication. Not so much for what it says, but simply because it continues to come out, day after day and year after year. A teeny-tiny political sect produces a daily newspaper. A real one, with TV reviews and sports results and colour pictures and columnists and everything. How do they do it? Where does the money come from? Apparently, at one time there were two rival WRPs each producing its own rival daily News Line! It's a great subject for a wikipedia article. We need to know more! GrahamN 03:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, phrases like "does not assert the importance or significance of the subject" are the result of attempts to find a way to quickly get rid of things like high school clubs and bands - we get a lot of newbie articles about them. Kappa 04:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, daily newspaper. Kappa 05:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. exisiting, functioning paper. pschemp | talk 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. JoshuaZ 06:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Daily media publications are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. PJM 04:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deletionificationized. DS 16:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besterest

Creator seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for Urban Dictionary. Slang dictdef. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 20 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. Shanel 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts on Fire

Nonnotable church youth group. Also reads like advertising and vanity. Indrian 04:38, 20 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 nomination withdrawn. Chick Bowen 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rutterford

Tagged as Speedy deletion, but not a speedy candidate, since it contains an assertion of notability (worked on well-known films and videos for well-known bands). Listing here for discussion. Not vote. Chick Bowen 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already an article for him as "Alex Rutterford". sorry about this โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicwax (talk โ€ข contribs)

Indeed. Withdrawing nomination, will redirect. Chick Bowen 06:30, 20 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. Shanel 01:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Quartet

Completely unverifiable, biased, reads like the creator's entry to a contest, as well as a text dump. Most damning of all, I see no attempt at asserting notability. Delete. Makemi 05:51, 20 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. Shanel 01:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films based on books categories

The article is one big self-reference. - EurekaLott 06:27, 20 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. Shanel 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wowk

Deleted as copyvio, Recreated/rewritten; relisted. mikka (t) 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just added some more info, and will continue to research and add info. (Cardsplayer4life 03:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep โ€” as rewritten. I have discussed the article with Dr. Wowk and he was very displeased with the previous versions, and was not unhappy with having them deleted. I do believe, however, that Dr.ย Wowk is a very capable scientist whose work is noteworthy, and that he should be included in Wikipedia. I have discussed that matter with him and we have produced the text that has just replaced the version mostly written by Cardsplayer4life. I hope that the other editors find this version acceptable. I think Dr.ย Wowk is going to be even more recognized for his future work than for the work he has already done. --Ben Best 15:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very acceptable, since I do not know the man personally, I did not know he was unhappy with the previous versions. I just felt that he deserved a wiki entry, and am happy he is now pleased with the current version. (Cardsplayer4life 20:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Even in the rewritten version there is no evidence of his recognition. His own writings do no count. In what books other reputable people give credits to Wowk? mikka (t) 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is certification of recognition by other scientists. The rewritten version should handle the copyright violation concerns. I am wondering if the former votes for deletion are now valid, or need to be reviewed. Also, I am wondering how many of those voting for deletion are qualified to evaluate the work of a cryobiologist/medical physicist. --Ben Best 15:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to the Talk:Brian Wowk page a number of references made by others to the work of Dr.ย Wowk. I hope this indicates to you the high regard with which others view his work. And I believe that it should satisfy your requirements. I can add that I know there are hundreds (if not thousands) of people who are not all scientists who nonetheless hold the work of Dr.ย Wowk in high regard. --Ben Best 00:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep revised - He is not just another cryobiologist, he is a major name in the field. The original article did not make his importance clear, but it now surely does. If anyone who has voted for deletion truly thinks that being "co-developer with Greg Fahy [no less] of key technologies enabling cryopreservation of large and complex tissues, including the first successful vitrification and transplantation of a mammalian organ (kidney)" is not "notable", I would truly love to hear your reasons! While Ben Best's documenting of references to him in the media helps make the point, his work with Fahy on vitrification really does not need to be bolstered by "fame references"... anyone who knows the meaning of the words in the quote above (first paragraph in the article as of this writing) should be able to see why an article on Wowk in Wikipedia is completely appropriate. Allan Randall 02:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Mushroom as a recreation of previously deleted content (csd-g4). - Bobet 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universist movement

Previous votes: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism 2.

(for historical record:) As of today this "world religion" gives 452 unique google hits for "universism" and 345 for "universist". mikka (t) 22:11, 20 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. Shanel 01:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE FORGOTTEN BIRDS OF Lloyd Lake (San Francisco)

Article appears to be a duplicate of Lloyd Lake (San Francisco). Author on crusade to raise bird awareness, so article appears rather pov/opinion/original research too. --OscarTheCattalk 06:55, 20 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. Shanel 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Khoo

An article on a school student who won an award, admittedly an important one, but this is still a non-notable bio which is classified as vanity. The kid hasn't achieved nearly enough notability to warrant an article, and while Hamedog has done a great job with his school's article, writing an entry on a fellow student goes beyond what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Harro5 07:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . This guy was the best student in the whole of WA. He's obviously going to do well . Soak it up Khoo. JB


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_20&oldid=40398613"