Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JeremyA (talk | contribs) at 21:02, 25 February 2006 (Gamesgamesgames.co.uk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< February 24 >

Purge server cache

February 25

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --cesarb 22:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kaczyzm

Rant Denni☯ 23:30, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaczyzm (Second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Svelglistigor, Svelglistigor (disambiguation), and Svelglistigor (battleship)

Hoax, neither Google nor Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board have heard of this, I've tried searching for every possible misspelling of the word I could come up with, but with no result. At best it could be someone's own English translation of the Swedish name, in that case a real article probably already exists. Obli (Talk)? 23:59, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rawlinson

(a)not notable, (b) possibly created by self (user PaulieRaw) Elf | Talk 00:02, 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 Speedy deleted. -- Longhair 03:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Sailors

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 TRANSWIKI and DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ayak

definition of an obscure Inuit word--unclear why page exists! Hynca-Hooley 00:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of all words, more or less. --Tone 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we share what a inuit word is, why do we have to redirect to the KKK. looks racest and selective to share KKK info and not inuit words. its AYAK an obsure KKK meaning. Wikipedia should not have anything on this page rather then redirect to the KKK.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.71.92 (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 --SYCTHOStalk 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rent-a-shills

Wikipedia:Etiquette failure — THOR =/\= 00:17, 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 speedy redirect. --SYCTHOStalk 03:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Graham

A google search for "Phillip Graham" + cellist revealed 3 hits...none relevant. Claims to notability in article but provides no source. Possible vandal and possible self-biography. POssibly has been deleted before (he claims this in the article) Joelito 00:26, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suave patria

The article (in Spanish) doesn't seem encyclopedic. Please see the Babel fish translation. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:35, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Rock in the 21st Century

Completely unsourced, and a badly-formatted title. We have an article on progressive rock and if that gets too big, it would be logical to split out subarticles such as history of progressive rock and origins of progressive rock. If an article on progressive rock in the 21st century is ever needed, it should grow organically out of a normal article, like as a subarticle of history of progressive rock. It's silly to have an article like this because 94% of the 21st century has not yet occurred. With all that said, I would have just merged it elsewhere except that there's nothing to merge because this is an unsourced list of albums and stuff that somebody decided was important -- hence, nothing to merge, and, even if an article on this topic was relevant, everything here would have to be removed because it is unsourced and opinionated, not to mention badly formatted and improperly titled (should be progressive rock in the 21st century, theoretically, but since this is more of a timeline than an article, it would be timeline of progressive rock in the 21st century). Tuf-Kat 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I have changed the formatting of the entry. You are correct that the title should be changed. Because the subject of progressive rock is very broad, I chose to tackle recent events because most of those are easily verifiable. I did not realize EVERYTHING, even fairly obvious items, needed to be verified. There are several sub-articles already on the "progressive rock" entry including lists which are full of opinion and debate. I think a timeline of progressive rock (even one that, for now, is just covering events and beyond) is valuable. --Flonkus 02:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Flonkus 20 February 2006 (entry edited by Flonkus)[reply]
  • I have sourced the article and tried to conform to a timeline format. I did some research and discovered several other musical genres with "timeline" articles, many of which have uncited sources and opinions. Please consider keeping this one or deleting all music timelines. For now, I requested a move (after asking for help) to change the article title to Timeline of Progressive Rock: 2001-present. I'd be more than happy to take on the task of doing a full timeline of progressive rock in the future as I have considerable knowledge on the subject. --Flonkus 19:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please use normal titles, and create a normal timeline. Why would we need a timeline for the most recent six years but not prior? Why would we start a timeline for a century that's barely begun, focusing on a topic far more closely associated with the 1970s than the 21st century? If you must make a timeline, make a timeline of progressive rock. The sources you've added are nice, but are not sufficient -- this is a timeline of "important, historical events" so you need to have a source that proves more than what occurred, meaning that it's fine to have a source that proves that Dream Theater released an album in 2001, that does not prove that that album's release was an important, historical event. And it's extremely inappropriate to use a band's official website to document something like this. Tuf-Kat 19:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While sourcing would be nice - I think there needs to be more than just an editor's opinion that a band is a progressive rock band or not - I like the way the article is laid out and believe it would serve the same useful purpose as the other rock timeline articles. Denni ☯ 02:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts | (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks, Elkman. I made a couple of newbie errors early on, but I have an interest in contributing lots of musical content to Wikipedia. I'm already very impressed at the vastness of the resource to date.--Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of work by various people has now gone into the page. Bondegezou 14:02, 27 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 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff See


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 (Non notable bio, prior version was a cross wiki link) xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC),[reply]

Defunct

Whopee. Non-notable moderator. Hardly serious. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 00:52, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Collections (2nd nomination)

This is the article's second nomination for Articles for Deletion. An archive of the original discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Collections.

As the Daily Collections is a non-notable collection of flash animations, I propose this page to be removed. The article is very unorganized and polluted with vanity information. It seems futile to clean up the text, as it is very likely the article will gradually deteriorate to its present state in the future.

From the past discussion, I have recovered the following:

Because of the above, one or more of four actions should be taken:

  1. Delete. The article's contents and history will be removed.
  2. Merge. The article will be briefly summarized and placed into Newgrounds as a short section.
  3. Redirect. The article will redirect to Newgrounds.
  4. Userfy. The article will be placed onto the user pages of the original editor, 24.109.9.205, and all primary editors.

My recommendation is to perform all four actions. Delete, merge, redirect, and userfy, all speedily if possible. --SYCTHOStalk 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

Additionally, there was no legitimate reason to keep the article in the first discussion. All keep comments are shown below:

The only appropriate argument given was by Eleuthero, but as the "work" can be userfied, there is no need to keep the article.

Log

Discussion

Please post comments and suggestions below.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. I count 12 deletes, 5 merges, and 3 keeps. On a strict vote-counting schema, this translates to 60% consensus to delete, which is not enough. These articles should probably be merged because that's the highest number of non-delete votes, but even among the five merge votes, there is exactly two for InfoWorld joke languages, one for Joke programming languages, one for InfoWorld joke programming languages, and one with no suggestion. Where these articles should be merged to is a debate that doesn't need an AfD to determine. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VALGOL programming language, SIMPLE programming language, SLOBOL programming language, LAIDBACK, Sartre programming language, FIFTH programming language, C- programming language, LITHP programming language, DOGO programming language

... is a fictional programming language invented by John Unger Zussman as a spoof of ... and San Fernando Valley slang (valspeak). It appears in a humorous list of "lesser known languages", published in InfoWorld in 1982 and later posted to Usenet. This is the original text pertaining to ...:

Oh my... —Ruud 00:54, 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 keep. Punkmorten 08:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anshe Chung

Anshe Chung is an important pioneer in the virtual world economy and has been featured on television and in countless newspaper articles. Her status can be rightfully described as a "celebrity" of this new medium. Deleting this Wikipedia entry would be a loss to everybody who is using Wikipedia to research virtual worlds and their economic and social dynamics.

Actually, this article should be merged elsewhere for now. But why did you create this AfD subpage? +sj + 04:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not merge. There is more to say about the ramifications of this business' actions than is appropriate for a section in Second Life. Anshe may be a big fish in a small pond, but big fish make waves, and they have been the subject of media attention. The article as it stands is not perfect, but there appears to be material and references in the talk that should help with that. GreenReaper 14:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no merge. Perhaps at some point there will be more such businesses and it would be appropriate to make this a section of an article about such businesses. At this time they seem to be in a class by themselves. Tualha (Talk) 15:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, This article pertains to an entity that exists in only a small number of online spaces, and doesn't reflect internet at large. --Ice 16:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, As far as I can tell Anshe Chung has been the subject of more media attention than any other Avatar in the history of MMORPGs, placing her well above Wikipedia's threshold of "ecyclopdia-ness"Carl Henderson
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 01:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 22,400 results from google, many from media outlets, is notable enough.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 00:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oyako Ryugaku

Doesn't appear to be more than a Japanese-English translation, which is not what wikipedia is for. Delete. Fightindaman 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment.The term Oyako Ryugaku is entering the English Vocabulary to describe a particular type of Japanese visitor expanding around the world. There appears to be no English Language equivalent to describe this form of tourism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicholsp02 (talk • contribs) .
Comment: A google search for "Oyako Ryugaku" yields 16 pages in English. I would hardly say it has entered the English language sufficiently. By contrast, a search for "Au Pair" which you used as a comparison on the articles talk page, gets 21.5 million hits. Fightindaman 01:34, 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 Redirect to System testing per nom's withdrawal. -- JLaTondre 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

System functional testing

*Delete: Non-notble minor term. Also, wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Hetar 01:18, 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 merge.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 07:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Samoa

Merge is good as it says villages too. Although lists of villages are apparently otherwise acceptable as we have List of villages in Serbia and Montenegro, List of villages in Northern Ireland, List of villages in Nebraska, and List of villages in West Virginia among others.--T. Anthony 09:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in some jurisdictions or geographies the term village has a different connotation than cities or towns which are incorporated and exclusive. Village may be more like township in certain Midwest or East Coast US States which may encompass land both inside and outside of an incorporated city or town. That said, I don't know what the situation in Samoa is. Carlossuarez46 02:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, although precedent seems to be to have regional lists of places rather than national. This would mean creating List of places in A'ana List of places in Aiga-i-le-Tai etc. Jcuk 10:25, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 07:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryugaku

Straight Japanese to english translation, does not appear to have much content besides this. Delete. Fightindaman 01:19, 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 Speedy redirect to Andy Milonakis. Aaron 02:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Milinokis

Redirect. This page's title is a misspelling of the intended person's name. Thus, this article is unnecessary. Wickethewok 01:33, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C Pluribus Unum

This is the exact same case we had with Super Mario 4. But this is worse. Super Mario 4 was at least a little humorous while it lasted, but this is completely pointless. I'm putting it up for deletion for lack of importance. Plus, it has the wrong categories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luigi III (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 redirect to database. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Database instance

This doesn't seem to say anything significant. It sounds to me like it is saying that a database instance is an instance of a database. RJFJR 02:13, 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 MERGE to Pepper spray, although I'm not at all clear that this would improve the article, so I'm just going to redirect. If someone can write better sentence than this article currently contains in Pepper spray, then great. -Splashtalk 20:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper spray ring

Nonsense with link to commercial site Blastwizard 02:23, 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 speedy delete as an attack page. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Cobb Meiser Extrodionaire

Non-notable. Vanity Joelito 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article is very useful . Antonio is notable.He is a very known person. DO not delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hummer931 (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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samochód pancerny

Untranslated article from the translation desk. Discussion from there follows. Kusma (討論) 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is about or what language it's in. Zelmerszoetrop 08:11, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CLJ

From the translation desk, has not been translated for two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found loose in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation. Portuguese, about the "curso de liderança juvenil". Kusma (討論) 14:02, 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 Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 05:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Allen (football player)

Nominated by anon, no reason given. AfD ophaned, listing now VegaDark 02:35, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianforumsite

Web forum that the article claims was opened in December 2005. Site has an Alexa rating over 3,000,000 while Google has only 21 hits, none of which appear to qualify as a reliable source for the purposes of verification. Delete as per WP:V and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Allen3 talk 03:19, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y.Misdaq aka Yoshi

Non-notable. Originally speedied, contested, moving to AfD. 121 Google results, but summarizes to 8 displayed hits. nefisa.co.uk has no Alexa ranking. Copied author's talk page response below. Delete └ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 03:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nefisa website is something that needs documenting as it's got a big following and is somehwat like a web. I have made the article about it's creator because he's someone who has released music publicly - if it's going to be deleted then I shall change it to be just about the website. I have spoken to Y.Misdaq aka Yoshi before, but am not a friend nor is he aware I am making this page. I believe it to have value because the site is influential in many ways. One has to experience it to know this.
Thanks, J,


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 by consensus and consent of author. Friday (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DelGripo Films

I tried deleting this via WP:XD, but the author reverted it and insists that because he plans to go to film school next year, his film company needs an article. But, it's really just some guy with a camcorder, there's nothing verifiable or significant here. However, since he insists on Afd, here we are. Friday (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I'm not just a guy with a camcorder, and I am going to film school next year (Columbia in Chicago, which is a highly accredited art school). The person trying to delete my page has no idea who I am, so he can't accurately judge me. Until he has actually met me, he cannot say for a fact who I am, or that I'm "just some guy with a camcorder". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.222.203 (talk • contribs) .

I suppose I've been rude. I'm sorry. This is not meant to be any judgment on the quality of your films. But, you're right, I have no idea who you are. And, since there don't appear to have any reliable sources talking about your work, I have no way of knowing who you are or what you do. It's for exactly this reason that your film company does not belong in an encyclopedia. We get articles about garage bands and amateur filmmakers all the time, and we don't consider them significant or verifiable enough for inclusion. This is not meant to be a judgment on your work, it's simply a judgment about what does or does not belong in an encyclopedia. No offense is intended. Friday (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My film company will not pop up on any search engine because I don't want to pay to have it listed. I don't care anymore, delete the page. I just wanted my page on wikipedia so I could gain more notice since wikipedia is used by many people. And since I don't have to pay anything to get an article on wikipedia, I liked the idea of it. I don't have tons of money to spend just so I can get recognized. My previous abbrasivesness was, somewhat, uncalled for. I hope you understand what I've tried to say, and my intentions.


Ok, I know, back off now.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as rewritten. -Splashtalk 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timing mark

Seems to serve no purpose; links to French articles go nowhere Jim62sch 03:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that the content has changed. Sulfur 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Removing my delete vote after article change. --Cymsdale 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now rewritten the article to be about two uses of timing mark, one being on an engine flywheel, the other being on an OMR sheet. I won't vote since it's now "my" content. Just zis Guy you know? 14:27, 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 Closed and resubmitted for new debate; the current debate has turned into a partisan political argument which has grossly clouded the basic issue. Bearcat 09:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Shefman

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, false info. posted, no other vaughan councillor posted, involved in crimminal activity, speading propaganda, racist against some ethnic groups (see http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world01/canad-school.htm ), never served as national director of b'nai brith he was employed by b'nai brith in a minor role but was fired, fired from Ontario human rights commission, asked to leave and then he resigned as school trustee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Keep (without prejudice against a legit AFD) - Anons who blank pages should not be able to nominate. The above cited story seems to actually give the person a little bump of notability. I think this AFD should be de-listed. After removal, if somebody else wishes to nominate them (based on them being merely a local politician), than I would respect that. --rob 11:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if kept then update with fatual information. to Thivierr, I am new here, I originally understood by blanking the page was the process to delete it (my fault for this). This page was brought to my attention from the B'nai Brith about the false information about the National Director — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)
    • Wikipedia is awfully forgiving of one-time mistakes. We generally don't call the first mistake vandalism. But you did it repeatedly, and you put a personal put-down as "fact" in the article itself. Then, you proceeded to remove a link to the page. Please realize repeated acts like this are not ok. Normally, local politicians like this don't get articles, but frankly, your convincing me this person seems to be notable, as he's gotten a lot of attention. --rob 12:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator is asked to please read User talk:64.231.242.98. --rob 12:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thivierr/rob, As I mentioned I am new here the changes I made I understood was the proper process. Wikipedia and yourself can do what ever you feel is correct but this page wit the incorrect info. about the National Director of b'nai brith was brought to my attention from the B'nai Brith as I am a member of b'nai brith Canada. Your other comment about the other change to another article was base on facts in local newspapers she admitted to this. It in not my oppinion. I beleive this Shefman article is posted for nothing more than to pursue his own politcal agenda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

  • The other article you are referring to is Susan_Kadis. In your first edit you changed the text "She" to "He". These types of changes are completely unacceptable. Also, please realize, its fairly easy to monitor these changes, and undo all of them, and take action to prevent further ones. --rob 12:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob you were referring to the "reason why she left change" not the "he" "She" change. The "he" "she" change was a mistake, I corrected it. look in the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

Yep, it was a mistake. Yes, you did correct it. However, it taints your future edits in the eyes of others (me at least). Please, don't be surprised if subsequent edits are given a greater deal of scrutiny as a result. Also, in the "reason why she left", you put your *opinion" that her replacement was unqualified (with no citation of who said it). We go by a neutral point of view at wikipedia, not bias. You're not welcome to push a one-sided opinion in any article. When you stick the facts, and avoid your own personal opinion, you'll find your contributions welcomed. --rob 12:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob the change "reason why she left" was NOT my opinion I put the opinion based on local newspapers articles (they don't seem to be on the internet or I would give you link to them) Personally it doesn't matter to me, I just think the correct info. should be posted without a political agenda. Infact I like your idea of "future edits .... greater deal of scrutiny" I think all edits should need some kind of process to prove it is fact. I understand that this may be difficult to enforce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

First, getting an account, would be good, as it provides a better way for people to communicate with you. As it stands, any page you use, is shared with others (who probably don't care for the conversation). Second, you can still cite a source if it's a newspaper. Check out various other articles which do this, and take a look at WP:CITE and WP:V. Essentially, information such as publication name, date, page author, etc.. must be provided (especially if there's no url). If it's a quote, you put in quotation marks. You must make clear its an opinion *not* state it as fact. You must also show other opinions, including the subject of the article's opinion (which is probably the replacement was qualified). Around here, if something's unverifiable, than it's as bad as being false. As for enforcement, verifiability is easy to enforce. We just delete and revert unverifiable claims, as I did with the Susan_Kadis. I don't have to prove a claim is false to remove it, just that it's unverifiable, which is much easier. --rob 13:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel the man is legit based on what I could find in a couple searches. But the article does need a clean-up. BTW, This Wikipedian has a problem with non-registered users who Nom articles for VFD. Account names help to provide a Wiki-trail of sorts and is good courtesy. Stu 20:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. City council members are notable for Wikipedia purposes, per ample precedent. MCB 01:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I actually created the original of this article and was surprised to see it up for deletion. He was the 'National Director of the B'nai Brith League for Human Rights' If you'd like, call them up and ask them, but it is true. Second, even beyond his political career which is noteable in the community (fought for accountability and transperancy on a corrupt school board, recycling advocate at city council) and many expect him to challenge Mario Racco for the Provincial Liberal nomination in Thornhill. He was also a 'special advisor to the prosecutor' in the Jim Keegstra Hate Crimes trial in Alberta and is listed on Ernst Zundel's website as one of his detractors. Furthermore, he was never fired from B'nai Brith and was absolutely not asked to leave the School Board. Is he as noteable as Elinor Caplan or Paul Martin? No. But is he noteable enough for his own wikipedia entry? Absolutely. Remember, we are trying to build a massive resource here, with information for everyone. Edit: If you ask me, all of the Vaughan Councillors should have their own wiki entrys. pm_shef 05:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above is more false information posted from Alan Shefman's son. It's not a surpirse that all this info. came directly from the Shefman's. Delete Attempting to use this as a political tool, attempt to use to futher his so called human rights company, not notable (served only a few monthes as councillor) (no other Vaughan councillor posted that served for many more years.) If kept then info. should be confirmed with a reliable source (not confirmed with more false info. posted from the shefman's on other websites) and a more indepth description about his crimminal activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep and Expand Criminal Activity? Would you care to explain to us what criminal activity? Yes I'm his son, how does that matter? In fact, it makes me far more credible than you (as some random, unsigned person) in saying that he's never been arrested or done anything illegal. Again, if you'd like I would STRONGLY encourage you to call B'nai Brith and they would be more than willing to confirm this fact. Furthermore, I am currently in the process of writing articles for ALL the Vaughan Councillors. I feel they should all be represented here as one of Canada's largest and the fastest growing city in Canada. pm_shef 17:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob you are accusing me of "ballot stuffing"? I am responding to false information posted not stuffing the ballot. pm-shef we will see if this article is taken down and if it is kept up then I will post the crimminal activity backed with documents from the York Regional Police, Toronto Police, RCMP and B'nai Brith Canada. You are tring to say that your father is notable enough to have an article posted but he has to get his son to write it and defend it. I am all for keeping it up as long as more notable people are kept up. How can you justify Alan Shefman being posted who served only a few months as councillor and no other current councillor or current or former Mayors posted (I posted former Mayor Lorna Jackson the other day) or even other people like Andrew Stronach (Frank Stronach's son and brother to Belinda) who got deleted the other day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

Delete one more thing pm-shef the ONLY REASON you posted this article about your father was an attempt to use as political tool and to further his so called human rights company. If wikipedia doesn't mind people using them as a political pond and as free advertising for a questionable company then they should keep it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)


  • *rolls eyes repeatedly*, This is starting to get rediculous. Let me clear some things up.
    • Yes, I am Alan's son
    • Alan does not even know that this page exists, I wrote it after finding the City of Vaughan entry and noticing that none of the councillors had sites. Since obviously I know more about Alan than about the other councillors, I made his first, as I said before, I am in the process of making entries for the other councillors as we speak
    • I very much support your posting of a Lorna Jackson article, she is very deserving as one, as are a number of former and current councilors.
    • Finally, about this "only reason" junk, please get a grip. How many people do you think use wikipedia to find themselves a human rights consultant? Probably none. I posted this article for informational purposes, and if it is kept, I will expand it. Alan is a noteable person in Vaughan, and if it bothers you that much, I'll agree to remove the external link at the bottom.
  • Also, I very highly doubt you have any documents from the police. Especially since he didn't do anything illegal. And even if he did, the Toronto police don't have jurisdiction in Vaughan. Good try though

Though on another note, if anon votes don't count (which I wasn't aware of) then do we not have a unanimous "keep" decision? pm_shef 20:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


To Pm_shef I would send you a message privately but I don’t know how through here, so I will post it here. I am new and still don’t know how to use all the features here. I think this is getting a little ridiculous so this will be my last post here unless I am asked to answer a question.

It appears that we agree that if Alan Shefman’s article stays up then all the other members of Vaughan council should also be posted. You mentioned you will work on the others, I will also and we both could make changes as needed to all of them (that’s if councillors of a small city is notable enough for wikipedia which I think is questionable) I posted Lorna Jackson up and you appeared to agree with this posting. With all do respect I think we could agree that there are many prominent people in Vaughan much more deserving of an article than Alan Shefman. Among past Vaughan council members who do you think deserves a page? Susan Kadis and Mario Racco are already posted but not as past councillors as an MP and MPP. Do you think any or all of the following deserves an article. Former Councillors David Chapley, Bernie Green and/or Gino Rosati, what about former Mayor Garnet Williams? What about any other prominent Vaughan residents? The only others that I found posted are as following (there are probably more that I didn’t find). Former Chief of Toronto and York Region Police Julian Fantino (who is a personal friend) (wink, wink pm_shef), Former MPP Tina Molinari, Former Federal Tory Candidate Josh Cooper, Vaughan MP Maurizio Bevilacque, Vaughan MPP Greg Sorbara. You know wikipedia puts some derogatory remarks (that are based of facts) in articles, this can be found on the Vaughan page about Michael DiBiase and Julian Fantino’s page to name a couple. It should be no different with Alan Shefman’s.

On another note about your comment about Toronto Police don’t have jurisdiction in Vaughan. If a criminal act is committed within their jurisdiction (Toronto) the city that this person resides in (Vaughan) does not matter in certain criminal acts (for example some none violent crimes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)


  • First of all, Vaughan is not a small city it is the 10th largest City in Ontario and the fastest growing municipality in Canada. Second of all, yes I think former Mayor Garnet Williams deserves a page, though I personally don't know enough about him to write it. David Chapley and Bernie Green did nothing of any note for the community, though if you were to demonstrate that I'm wrong on that point then I would consider not objecting to their posting. I'm not quite sure why you "winked" at me after Fantino, neither I nor my father know him beyond in his capacity as former Chief of YR Police. Furthermore, if Josh Cooper has a site, after having done absolutely nothing of note besides running, and losing for Federal office, then why on earth shouldn't Alan? Also, you do seem to have a personal grudge against Alan for some reason, care to tell why? or who you are? pm_shef 23:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pm_shef this will really be my last post. With a population of 235,000 Vaughan is still considered a small city, saying it’s the 10th largest in Ontario is not really saying much. In ten years or so it should be in the same category as say Mississauga. I think that Josh Cooper’s article was appropriate to be posted last year when he was a federal candidate but I think it should be deleted now, I think you would agree. I agree if Cooper deserves a page then Alan Shefman or almost anyone does but I let you know about Cooper because I was trying not to be biased. I will write an article about Garnet Williams, David Chapley, Bernie Green, Gino Rosati and maybe some others that I can think of that contributed to the growth of Vaughan if Vaughan Councillors including Alan Shefman stays up. I don’t mean this as an insult but you may be a little to young to realize this. Chapley and Green were the backbone of establishing the Thornhill we know today. Either Chapley or Green should be the Ward 5 councillor now, not Alan Shefman. If Alan Shefman’s page remains up then I will explain how he became Councillor. Notice how on Mario Racco’s page it mentions “under controversial circumstances” when he lost an election. Who you claim that Alan Shefman will challenge for the Liberal Provincial seat in 2007. Why doesn’t Alan Shefman challenge Susan Kadis for the Federal Liberal seat? He would have a better chance of beating her than Racco. It wasn’t that long ago that Racco beat Kadis. I winked because I know Fantino. I don’t have a grudge against Alan Shefman I just don’t think he deserves an article here or for that matter any Vaughan councilor, maybe the Mayor deserves a page. I live in Thornhill but I am sure you figured that out, last year my lawn had a green sign that kept disappearing. Lucky for me I put up a surveillance camera to see how they kept disappearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

  • *raises eyebrow* So now you are accusing him of a crime. I suggest you be very careful with what you say, that could very well be considered slander. Once again, I challenge you to provide evidence of any real contributions Chapley or Green made to the City of Vaughan. I'm not aware of these "controversial circumstances" that you refer to, and since it wasn't in Thornhill, I am positive that neither Alan or Susan had anything to do with it since they are both Thornhill politicians. You also say that "either chapley or green should be ward 5 councillor now." Why exactly? What have they done for Thornhill? Furthermore, it seems to me that Alan received a clear vote of support from the electors, with almost 10% more votes than Green and over 10% more votes than Chapley in a field of 13 candidates. Really, I think your above comment proves that the afd nomination was totally politically motivated and should be discounted pm_shef 04:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about Mario Racco's page saying "controversial circumstances" was just saying that they put these kind of comments up not that Shefman or Kadis was involved in Racco's lose. You have got to agree that Alan Shefman became a councillor under what is mostlikely the most "controversial circumstances" ever in Thornhill. Chapley or Green should be the councillor based on there past accomplishments and past experience alone. Alan Shefman was quoted and admitted himself in an article in the Vaughan Citizen and the Thornhill Liberal that he wouldn't have become councillor if it wasn't for the interference of Susan Kadis. Let me correct you, Shefman didn't get a clear vote of support it was Kadis that got it for him. Please answer my question about why Alan Shefman would challange Mario Racco for the Liberal Provincial seat and not challenge a weaker (based on results when Racco and Kadis ran against each other) Susan Kadis for the Federal Liberal seat. I think you would agree the Federal Liberal seat is a lot more secure than the Provincial Liberal seat. Many expect that Tina Molinari will be re-elected Provinicialy regardless if Racco, Shefman or Kadis runs Provincially. Is it possible to post a video clip on here? The accomlishements of Chapley and Green far and away exceed the accomlishments of Shefman and Kadis. As I mentioned before if councillor articles are posted then I will post Chapley and Green who are much more deserving of articles than most of the current councillors. I really don't think councillor article are appropriate for here, the only ones that I think are appropriate are Susan Kadis as MP, Mario Racco as MPP, Mayor Michael DiBiase and former Mayors Lorna Jackson and Garnet Williams I think you have proven that the only reason you posted an article of Alan Shefman was politically motivated, you mentioned yourself that he is planning on challenging Mario Racco which he will not stand an chance of beating Racco. P.S. you did a good job in cleaning up the Lorna Jackson article. It looks great!


  • Once again, you have not proven anything. Especially since I said that all the current councillors should have pages. I asked you before and I'll ask you again, exactly what accomplishments to Chapley and Green have? Honestly, wikipedia isn't your personal vendetta site, if you dislike him so much, make your own webpage. On another note, how long does this thing go before a decisions is made? pm_shef 16:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, the established precedent is that city councillors should only be on here if they (a) serve on the council of a major metropolitan city that's internationally known (i.e. Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver), or (b) are already notable for other reasons and their city council term is just an extra detail. A senior director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission meets criterion b, so keep this, but the precedent does not support a blanket permission to write up everybody on Vaughan's city council. A city of 235,000 people does not qualify for criterion (a). (Mayors are a different policy entirely; the precedent is much more unequivocally in favour of mayors having articles.) And by the way, this page is to discuss the merits or lack thereof of the article, so can the debate about the fundamental merits of his entire political career and kindly stay on the topic. Bearcat 08:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to the last comment about the criteria just to make sure I understand about criteria for Alan Shefman’s article. (1) I understand that as a city councillor of a smallish city his article does NOT meet the criteria (2) A Senior Director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission does meet the criteria but in order for this article to stay posted it must (A) be proven that Alan Shefman was director of communications and education for the Ontario Human Rights Commisission and (B) prove that this position was a Senior Director’s position. I have doubts that this position was and/or he was a Senior Director, lots of positions within Governement have “fancy” names to make them sound better than what they really are. I myself was a Census Commissioner for Statistics Canada which I can admit myself was a position that was nothing special or notable as every area in Canada had there own Census Commissioner with this title. I would estimate that there was about 450 to 500 people in Canada with this title during the 2001 Census. If Alan Shefman’s article stays then I will post an article of myself based on my “Census Commissioner” position with Statisitcs Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

  • No, you won't. By your own admission, "Census Commissioner" isn't a high-power and high-profile job; it's one that about 500 other people hold at any given time. Being a senior director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission is not an equivalent position; it's high in the org chart, has a lot of authority, and there are never more than a handful of them. Keeping of this does not grant you precedent to write about people who've held minor positions, and for that matter, Wikipedia expressly disallows people from writing an article about themselves. Bearcat 20:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point I agree with your totally my profile does not belong here just as Alan Shefman's does not, please keep in mind that (a) Alan Shefman's article was posted by his son and (b) he never held a senior directors postion with the Ontario Human Rights Commisission he held a postion that is held by a few hundered people at any given time which is not a high-power nor high-profile position. If you are trying to say that his old position is more senior than his current position, let me ask you. Why would he take so many steps backwards in his career path, going from a so called "senior position" to self employed to school trustee to city councillor in a small city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

The Ontario Human Rights Commission most certainly does not have a few hundred Directors of Communications and Education at any given time; it has one. And for the record: Wikipedia AFD is not a place where you have the right to wage a POV war on someone you personally don't like. You say your piece once and then be done with it; you do not post an individual response to every individual comment that gets posted here. And you are required to sign your comments; you can do this by typing ~~~~ at the end. Oh, and by the way...if you so much as BREATHE on the Susan Kadis article again, you can consider yourself banned. Bearcat 21:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First thanks for correcting your mistake on Susan Kadis's page. It looks good now as what is posted is the truth. If Alan Shefman's page stays because of his so called "senior directors" position with the Ontario Human Rights Commission then I will post all 200 or so current "senior directors” and as many as I could find of past “senior directors” of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. By the way, I was employed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in the early 1980’s. My title was “Assistant Deputy Minister” The over 200 people across the Province within the Commission with the title “Director” in there name reported to me and was my responsibility. You still did not answer my question about why would Alan Shefman take so many steps backwards in his career path if he held such a high power position with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The answer is because it was not a senior position. I guess I could get my son to list my profile here as I held a more "senior" position (even though I don't think I am notiable enough to have an article) than the so called "senior directors"

Here is a link to the role of “Assistant Deputy Minister” this is from the province of Alberta, http://www.pao.gov.ab.ca/learning/corpexec/adm-profile/role-of-the-adm.htm , it is similar to Ontario, I just couldn’t find anything from Ontario on the internet. They don’t even list the “directors” because it is not a senior position and is to low in the “ranking of positions” “directors” position within the government is similar to being a department manager at a department store or a grocery store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

I have added a little more information to this page. He was a member of York University's Board of Governors. I think he is notable enough to stay here. Keep. --YUL89YYZ 22:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'm going to again agree with Bearcat, this is relevant and the director position is senior. In fact, there is only one person who occupies position of Director of Communication and Education. That person works directly under the Chief Commissioner (the head of the commission) so to say that Alan's position wasn't senior is foolish. Anyways, I added more information, specifically about the help he gave to the prosecution in the Keegstra trial in Alberta and also info about the by-election in 2004 when he got elected... i thought that would make the article more relevant. pm_shef 05:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I should advise you as well that while Wikipedia doesn't specifically disallow such a thing, for purposes of maintaining objectivity and neutrality it's best if people don't write articles about their own family members. Much like the idea of writing about yourself, which is more explicitly frowned upon here, it's generally best to stand back with the understanding that if a direct relative of yours is genuinely notable enough to have an article, someone else will eventually write one. Bearcat 18:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I wasn't aware of that, this was the first article that I'd written on Wikipedia, and I'll be sure to be more careful next time. That being said, there's no reason to delete this pm_shef 20:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reveiwed all the comments and I would say that this article should be deleted User: 67.70.151.219

Note: The comment immediately above was the user's third-ever edit under the signed IP number -- #1 was to the article itself and #4 was to Lorna Jackson, the mayor of the very same city whose council includes Mr. Shefman. This edit pattern strongly implies that the user has a vested interest in the outcome of this debate. And considering that this user's second edit was to an obscure unelected political candidate who ran against Susan Kadis (yep, her again) in the 2004 election, I'm now convinced that this was essentially a partisan political attack from the outset.

I'm hereby invoking admin power to close the current debate as an irreparably tainted discussion from which a viable and honest consensus cannot realistically be determined. I will renominate the article on procedural grounds for a clean discussion. Bearcat 08:58, 5 November 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere expectation criterion

  • Original research. The term exists only on Wikipedia and an unmoderated mailing list, and the source is a thread from several years ago. The previous nomination got bogged down in a discussion of the merits of the criterion, which is irrelevant because it's original research and has no published source. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather see this be an en bloc deletion nomination that includes all Mike Ossipoff's criteria as well (with the possible exception of favorite betrayal criterion and summability criterion), otherwise I can't vote for just this single criterion for NPOV reasons. -- Dissident (Talk) 05:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi there. You are free to nominate the other pages if you believe, in good faith, that they should not remain on WP. En bloc nominations have a tendency to produce no clear consensus, since some participants will judge the entries as one while others will make individualized decisions. Hence individual noms may be preferable. Regards —Encephalon 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Few Google hits. This criterion was mentioned only in a single thread in a single mailing list. This thread is more than 7 years old. And this mailing list is unmoderated.
This article is obscure. Even the author of this article is unable to justify his statements about this criterion. Whenever he is asked to explain his claims about whether a given election method satisfies or fails this criterion, he refuses to answer and he claims that all those who don't see that he is right were dishonest and Mike Ossipoff devotees. Markus Schulze 09:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Markus Schulze, if you don't stop with these unfounded personal attacks, then I'll be forced to start a request for comment concerning your behavior. If you simply disagree with my argument on talk:sincere expectation criterion, JUST SAY SO, but don't claim it doesn't exist. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:16, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravioles

nn, advertising. Out of 512 possible hits on Google, item only has 1, an indexing directory which has archived this particular article. Anything else is likely mirrors of this article. み使い Mitsukai 04:13, 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 DELETE as either copyvio or unwanted. -Splashtalk 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Ward Wood

Delete The subject does does not seem notable enough for inclusion, references in the article seem to be to others whose identity is not established in the article (Lee, is this General Lee?). I did not WP:PROD As I realsize this is debatable. SailorfromNH 04:15, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 07:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TEC42

Advert for a startup company. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:22, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egg Box Publishing

nn, advertising. Google only logs 721 hits (many of which are mirrors) for "Egg Box Publishing". Alexa doesn't have it ranked. み使い Mitsukai 04:45, 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 Speedy Delete by Shanel as recreation of deleted material and CSD A7. --lightdarkness (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bryant

Non-notable. Probably vanity Joelito 04:52, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yamachi

Delete, the fandom around this is hardly significant for it's own article, let alone to define a term found in it. The information pretty much seems useless, so I don't think a merge with other fanfiction type articles would be appropriate either. Ned Scott 05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but this is likely non-canonical, which tends to be a consideration. Note one of the terms used: seme, a term from yaoi fanfiction, which is almost always non-canon. This is likely nothing more than some rabid fangirl trying to get attention for her favorite "pairing". I have no problem with the individual characters having their own slots here, but that's a far cry from this.--み使い Mitsukai 15:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it was non-canonical, that would convince me. I don't know enough about the source material to know. --Cymsdale 15:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
they are "not minor character", though. They're two of the main characters in Digimon Adventure, and play a sizeable role in Digimon Adventure 02. Circeus 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing my vote for merge. I don't know enough about the topic to judge. --Cymsdale 23:37, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-95 exit list

A list of highway exits. That's it. Wikipedia not being a list of indescriminate information, I say toss this. Was PRODed, but tag removed on the grounds "...exit lists encouraged, per WP:IH". WP:IH is not policy nor even guideline: it's Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways, and the "encouragement" is a single sentence inserted into it. Calton | Talk 05:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I was gonna vote merge, 'til I read the I-95 article and found the relevant information encouraged in WP:IH (bulleted list of intersections with other Interstates and Major roads) is already there. Change vote as per info from Rschen below, to Keep Jcuk 10:34, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryku_Uchiha

Original fan material CNichols 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright,that's enough! Listen,I'm the author of this page and I just wanted to show this to my friends tommorow at their sleep over! Besides,I'm so lazy,this is probably the busiest night I've ever worked! So please, wait two days. Thank you. Oh, and Don't delete-Cptmike
  • Oh,please! As Bender Bending Rodregiuez would say, "Not a free host,blog, or webspace provider, my ass!". OK,so it isn't any of those things,but still,can't you wait like, two days? Cptmike
Cptmike, feel free to copy the content of your article over to your user page. Then you can show that to your friends. --Xyzzyplugh 07:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is merely a discussion that will go on for a week. After the week is over, an interested admin will try to determine the consensus. However, do not remove the afd tag from the article. happy editing. TheRingess 07:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miscalculation! I haven't left yet! Leave it!Cptmike


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcdev

nn, advertising. Alexa gives it a rating of 2.5M, Google hits for McDev McDaniel Development only garners 416 hits. Lastly, page has not been touched since 23:03, 22 April 2005, when it was created. み使い Mitsukai 06:11, 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 keep and cleanup. Punkmorten 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qalal

Delete, google search on this term suggests that article is factually innacurate Xorkl000 06:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first chapter of the Mishnayot describes the vessels that were hidden - including the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle of the Lord, i.e. the Mishkan, the Tablets of Moses, the altar (with cherubim) for the daily and seasonal sacrifices (the ushebtis), the Menorah (candelabra), the Qalal (copper urn) containing the Ashes of the Red Heifer (ashes from a red cow sacrificed under Moses, necessary for ritual purification of the priests), and numerous vessels of the Kohanim (priests).

Better justifications than simple Google searches will probably turn up more, but this is very notable regardless.--み使い Mitsukai 08:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, agreed that it is notable and should stay, however still poorly written and lacking in context - can we send to cleanup?--Xorkl000 09:29, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No_Win_Situation

Delete as Non-notable. Googling for one of the Album resulted in only 67 pages. Wikipedia Page was created one year back and has only one edit from anonymous user.. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:10, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qadr

Delete, nothing worth merging with Al-Qadr Xorkl000 06:21, 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 REDIRECT to Quidditch. -Splashtalk 20:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quidditch World Cup

Totally useless except for select Harry Potter maniacs who honestly have nothing better to do than to look into the history of a fictitious event of a magical sport from some children's book. Seriously, why isn't "Battle of Honour" from Romance of the Three Kingdoms the novel an article? JK Rowling's idea of the world cup probably came up after watching football's world cup, and getting a rush of feeling that it should be created for Quidditch too. Delete. Colipon+(T) 06:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete However, why was the page for it blanked? Schizombie 06:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is for Quidditch World Cup not for the main Quidditch article, so any such suggestions about merging articles, that are not part of this AfD process, should be done on the relevant articles talk page as per normal Wiki procedures. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 23:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I think the Quidditch World Cup was only put in the GoF for two reasons: 1. There is no other Quidditch match in GoF thanks to the Triwizard Tournament, 2. It allows the reappearance of the dark mark, which unites Voldemort with his Deatheaters, in an eerie situation for all to see which inevitably creates a very dramatic scene of chaos. From what I can tell the Quidditch World Cup was equivalent (in length & importance to the story) to that of any other Quidditch game played in the other HP novels. Granted in the HP world it is a very important event, but in the story itself it equates to all other Quidditch events. --Jelligraze 16:00, 27 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 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rykiri_Uchiha

Original fan material - CNichols 06:34, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryku_Uchiha

Original fan material CNichols 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright,that's enough! Listen,I'm the author of this page and I just wanted to show this to my friends tommorow at their sleep over! Besides,I'm so lazy,this is probably the busiest night I've ever worked! So please, wait two days. Thank you. Oh, and Don't delete-Cptmike
  • Oh,please! As Bender Bending Rodregiuez would say, "Not a free host,blog, or webspace provider, my ass!". OK,so it isn't any of those things,but still,can't you wait like, two days? Cptmike
Cptmike, feel free to copy the content of your article over to your user page. Then you can show that to your friends. --Xyzzyplugh 07:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is merely a discussion that will go on for a week. After the week is over, an interested admin will try to determine the consensus. However, do not remove the afd tag from the article. happy editing. TheRingess 07:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miscalculation! I haven't left yet! Leave it!Cptmike


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gangs_Of_Gta

Delete. Non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 1,710,247. Xyzzyplugh 07:05, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gen2x

all it is is an advertisement Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:13, 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 KEEP, with some interest in a merge. I'll add a tag since it's been suggested, but it can be decided editorially. -Splashtalk 23:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StreetWise

Non noteable newspaper; only link to is list of newspapers in chicagoland Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per below --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on Karnesky's work. If not that, then Merge and redirect to Street newspaper. This is just one of many papers of this type, and if it's not strong enough to survive on its own, then it can be easily folded into this article without issue.--み使い Mitsukai 07:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight keep. This is a stub, but I think it is just as notable as Real Change, (which I just fixed a redlink to StreetWise in) and Spare Change. Having been in Seattle, Boston, and Chicago, I can see that Street Wise seems to be the most prevalent, for whatever that is worth. Anyway, all three articles should be treated similarly. If StreetWise is merged to Street newspaper (which wouldn't be unreasonable), the other two should also find homes there. --Karnesky 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Newspapers are presumptively notable, the burden should be on nom to show otherwise. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to street newspaper, unless it can be expanded. I don't see enough independent information to merit independent treatment. Postdlf 05:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that the circulation is twice that of Spare Change, which has a presumption of notability, should make this particular paper notable (barring any other differentiating content in Spare Change. It also reenforces the subjective belief I mentioned previously that StreetWise was more pervasive. If anyone votes merge, I think it would be beneficial to also say whether or not those articles which haven't been AfDed should also be merged (and why). --Karnesky 18:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As these papers all function the same way, the only variation between them appears to be their city, circulation, and how much the vendors keep. Those are mere statistics, which can easily be incorporated into the street newspaper article, perhaps in table form. Unless one of these papers has something unique about its history or its content (such as notable stories, contributors, etc.), I don't see why any of them should have an independent article when they can all be adequately covered in one. Postdlf 18:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, but put mergefrom and mergeto tags on the appropriate articles. Nom now wants to merge & redirect this & two other articles. Because it effects multiple pages and there are no deletion votes, this is a discussion which should be had on the talk page for Street papers (the article that the other three articles would possibly be merged to. --Karnesky 13:59, 27 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 00:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendternet

First, let me reassert that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and certainly not one for neologisms (see WP:Avoid_neologisms. Even if it weren't, it's definitely a vanity article. From the page itself, this "term" was invented by the author, as he asserts proudly within the first couple sentences. Isopropyl 07:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as above -- Francs2000 08:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. I had no idea wiki members could be so hostile. p.s.-If you took any time to see the site, you'd see I'm not a "he". (very observant) Who IS allowed to submit new terminology without getting pounded by commenters? Learned a real lesson here. The nastiness is unnecessary. Entry was made with no negative intentions, really. Ah well. Sarcomical 08:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry you feel you're being jumped on here, but these things tend to get listed quite quickly. New terminology is generally unencyclopedic and is mostly deleted from Wikipedia: it has to be quite notable to remain. Apart from that terminology tends to go in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. -- Francs2000 08:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Francs, I see now the whole process a bit more clearly. And I appreciate your tone as well. So sorry for not paying closer attention to the rules. I'll probably not check in on it again and just let it drop. I'm not interested in making any debates over something so silly.  ;) Thanks all.Sarcomical 08:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neologism, Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms refers.  (aeropagitica)  09:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not the place to "submit new terminology" — ever. We are — or try to be — an encyclopaedia, and our job is to document existing phenomena, not to advertise new stuff. That's why so many people jumped on it at once. That said, categorising the article as "vanity" was unnecessary: if there are good reasons to delete an article, then they can be raised without the dreaded v-word that often causes offence; if there aren't, then mere suspected "vanity" is not enough cause to delete. By the way, Sarcomical, tea cozies (I note we don't have an article about them; oh, the same!) are designed to keep your teapot warm for longer. Nobody likes to drink tepid tea! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:14, 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 speedy delete Tim | meep in my general direction 10:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seena Ghaziaskar

Doesn't meet Bio requirements WU03 07:36, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Samuels

User (posting as various IPS) clearly doesn't want a page and has vandalised WP to such. I should note that I filed this afd only after a person claming to be Samuels has made multiple legal threats against Wikipedia (see http://jimmywales.blogspot.com/ for a cite. I suppose one could say my objectivity is biased by the fact that I am accused in the above vandalism posts, so I will not be voting either way in this AfD. Tawker 07:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep national party leaders with media coverage and references. Most of the work seems to have been done by User:CJCurrie, a fine Wikipedian. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. It's not a registered political party [13], so how would this be any different from you calling yourself the "Caesar Party of Canada" and rating a Wikipedia entry as a national party leader? The registration requirements are hardly onerous [14], there's a registered Marijuana Party of Canada among others. Notability would depend on whether he's rated any mention in the media (a passing mention in a Time magazine article and various newspaper stories is cited, which may be significant). Regarding complaints about having a Wikipedia article, it would seem that if a person is a self-described "national political party leader" then he imagines himself to be a public figure, and public figures usually come in for public scrutiny, for better or worse. The Cosmopolitan Party of Canada could certainly also be nominated for AfD. -- Curps 08:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit I haven't heard of the party before, but as I said there's references- you note Time Magazine, the article also gives the Toronto Star and Ottawa Citizen. The Marijuana Party is, by the way, a well-known party, or at least it is as much as it can be without being among the four that get into Parliament. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this is a well-written and referenced article, I doubt that he meets WP:BIO. He is the head of an unregistered party and he seems to barely get 100 votes in his constituency. Delete.Capitalistroadster 09:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong keep He's run for election three times, written a bunch of books, created a bunch of websites and founded an unregistered political party. While each of those things on its own may or may not be sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, together they certainly are. Is Wikipedia diminshed by including this material? It isn't. Not one bit. Is it diminished by deleting it? Yes, it is. Firstly, there are people, like me an CJCurrie, who are interested in the characters who populate the firnges of the political scene. Wikipedia is exactly the right place for this sort of information because Wikipedia is not paper. Secondly, wha sort of message do we send out by deleting a lengthy article largely written by a fine Wikipedian like CJCurrie just because a few people think that the subejct isn't "notable" enough. Ground Zero | t 13:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . I like Ground Zero's summary, it pretty much sums up my thoughts on it. What's really good about the Wikipedia article is that it gathers so many sources into one article. This man has run in pretty much every election happening federally or provincially since around 1992 or so, and if he's now leader of a federal political party, which does occasionally get radio coverage (he's been interviewed), print media mentions, and has been endorsed by two federal politicans (see endorsement page on his site), it warrants an article. The fact that he's going on a rampage to complain about it in this case reinforces the need to keep it (if it wasn't so well sourced that would be another matter), not the need to delete it. Technicalglitch 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
added- I think he meets the criteria for "notable", even if he isn't "famous" or "important". Technicalglitch 14:21, 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 MERGE to 9/11 Truth Movement. There is little well-argued support for retaining a standalone article. Much of it is "but we have Pokemon articles". Well yes, we do. That doesn't have a great deal to do with this article though, which is largely unrelated to Pokemon. The 'merge to' arguments are well-enough supported, with the supposition that deleters will grumble but live with a merge as a compromise position that I reckon there's a reasonably consensual position on this. That said, a merge is an editorial decision. Fuddlemark's point about right's to express POVs is on the money, by the way. -Splashtalk 23:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Citizens' Commission on 9-11

KEEP: The Citizens' Commission is the best single DVD summary of the good evidence, without the nonsense and poison pills, that 911 was a USG covert operation. Michael Green

  • Keep Do not offend me by implying i have not the right to represent my view here! I am starting to real angry and uppset over such statements! How come i am "sopboxing" when trying to represent my view, but you are contributin when you try to do the same? Im not far from losing civility. As for your accusations to the article, it clearly says: "The commision IS FORMED AS a United States Congress hearing" and not "The commision WAS a United States Congress hearing". Maybe you didnt even bother to read the title, "The Citizens Commission on 9-11", ? IF you even bother to look at it, you will see that it is a very good description. Even if it was a bad description, you should fix it, not delete the whole article. Further, it is notable for several resons, one being that Cynthia McKinney, a congresswoman, participiated in it. Man i am angry! --Striver 10:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, you don't have the right to represent your view here. Neither do I, nor anyone else on Wikipedia. WP:NOT a democracy, free speech forum, or personal website; and WP:NPOV is our second-most important policy (behind Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). I don't have an opinion about this specific article, but I would hope that you have a better reason for creating it and similar articles besides a desire to express your own point of view, and a better reason for keeping it besides taking offence at the "nomination" above and being worried about your "rights". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt mean it that way, i meant that all povs must be represented, including mine. --Striver 14:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this a somehow particularly noteworthy conspiracy theory deserving its own article? Is a congressperson sitting in on a commission highly notable in the USA? Their web site seems to be mostly about selling their reports, complete with payments for the reports going to some survivalist stuff shop. Weregerbil 11:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a article about any theory at all, this is a article about a civil commission, and quite a noteworthy such, among those people holding those views. And in fact, it is noteworthy in its own acount as well, since Cynthia McKinney is participiating.
  • Comment One member of Congress participating in an event held by 9/11 'truth' organizations does not count as a Congressional hearing. Do you know what a Congressional hearing is? (note that I am not trying to be hostile and I apologize in advance if I in any way sound like I do).--Jersey Devil 11:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offence taken, bro *smile*. Thanks for being so polite to me. Bro, the event was about the most prominent researchers in the 9/11 truth field getting together to have a commisson about 9/11. Now, as it turned up, they choose to mimic the congressional variant. That does not make them a Congressioan hearing congress, neither is the article claiming any such thing. I will edit the article to clearify that. --Striver 11:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not from the US; my main source of information on the workings of the US government is The West Wing :-) There they'd send a government representative to sit with some fringe group meeting so they can say they covered all the bases. The survivalist connection here really smells like nam pla. Weregerbil 11:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure what you meant, but if you questioned wheter Cynthia whas there on her own, or sent by someone, you only need to look trough the recording to see clearly that nobody in politics would "send her" to that Commission. Her point of view in that Commission is not far from being politica suicide. Further, she was no a congresswoman at that time, she had been fired, but she was re-elected not much later. Politicians hate her, the people love her. --Striver 11:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo. Could you give me a single line that is even a LITTLE BIT POV? Man, you make me curse out loud while im typing! You not liking the article does not make the article pov! You certanly chose the correct name! --Striver 11:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I and Mongo go back, we have history... But you have right. I lost my temper on that last line. --Striver 11:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History? I only remember you from a few days ago at most.--MONGO 13:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a long "few days". --Striver 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as non-notable (apart from all the POV). As already pointed out, this isn't a "United States Congress hearing", and there is no indication this "commission" is notable even in the circles of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Echo the soapbox comment by nominator. Sandstein 12:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why people like to repeat things i have proven false. The article DOES NOT claim that it is a United States Congress hearing, and the evidence of it being notable " in the circles of 9/11 conspiracy theorists" is that the follownig people where among them:

They are among the top of the "circles of 9/11 conspiracy theorists". If you still dont know how those people are notable, then at least admit you have no idea of who is or is not notable among those holding my view.

--Striver 12:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, it can be argued that it was non-notable for everyone else, but it is notable for those in the group. Its like saying that the religious festivite of a minor religion is non-notable, only since you never heard of it. I clearly showed that the most prominent people holding that view where present in that event. Notability does not mean whether you care, rather, if the relevant people care.

Is doing "the report of the theorists" not what wikiepdia is about? How can you vote delete for doing what wikipedia is about, reporting points of views?

People, dont delete things only because you dont agree with the view! --Striver 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the people in the group care is irrelevant. Whether the world at large cares is. The discussions I and my friends had in the pub last night were important to us, but they still aren't encyclopedic material. Can't find notability in this conspiracy theory report or the proceedings that created it. It has nothing to do with agreeing with the views, it has everything to do with WP:N. Some conspiracy theorists calling themselves "a commission" is not automatically notable. I have no POV agenda I am trying to push here. Weregerbil 13:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont get it, why can this event not have its own artice? It shows every single sign of being notable for the persons in the concerned circle!--Striver 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement, as its only claim to notability is its affiliation with that group. (And clean up the content first.) JDoorjam Talk 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, everything affilitated with the 9/11 Truth Movement is to be merged there? Why not merge everything related to Islam inte Islam? Why not merge Salat into Islam, since it is only notable due to being a part of Islam? --Striver 15:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, everything that doesn't have enough content that it should be a separate article should be merged there. Salat should not be merged into Islam because there's more than enough content to discuss Salat in great detail on its own page, but still give a general overview of it in its parent page, Islam. I don't see that there's enough material here that this shouldn't be merged. My reasoning is, if someone wants to get an idea of what the 9/11 Truth Movement is all about, they shouldn't have to run all over the Wiki to find information. If this is worth saying, it's small enough in content that it's worth saying on the 9/11 Truth Movement, rather than putting shards of this topic all over the encyclopedia. JDoorjam Talk 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn and POV. --Aaron 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A commision with a congresswoman participiated in it is nn and POV? Could you expand on HOW it is POV? I really like it when people say "delete, pov" to a article, without the slightest motivation on HOW it is pov. Further, POV is NPOVed, not deleted. --Striver 17:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's my understanding she was not a Congresswoman at the time... though who can tell? The article has no dates. I do have to agree with Striver that "POV" is a rather weak reason to delete this article, as the article is about a group (and maybe an event? Who can tell?) with a POV, but that does not make the article itself have a POV that cannot be, you know, N'd. JDoorjam Talk 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Media coverage, World premier of a movie, former and future congresswoman participiated, great oppurtunity to spread the message... Why do you think people would record the entire thing and put it on the net for download, if it was non-notable for those in the movement? --Striver 03:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notability is not adequately sourced; needs to cite at least one source published by a reliable publisher. The Citizens' Commission on 9-11 web sites are primary sources for this article. "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication." See WP:RS. The McKinney web site does not mention the article subject. The other web citations do not satisfy this guideline since "they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report". Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Article is expanded, some votes may need to be re-evaluated. --Striver 02:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered that, why do people keep ignoring the issues that make this relevant, and keep repeating things that DOES not make this relevant? Why dont you delete this sayng "they drank water, that does not make it notable"?

This was the bigges things that happened to the 9/11 movement then, ONLY that makes it notable, even if you ignore that:

  • There where VERY prominent people among the 9/11 truth movement there.
  • One of them got into congress a few month later.
  • A decade long Canadian mainstream journalist was present.
  • Media was there.
  • Families of the vicitims of 9/11 wherer there.
  • A world premier of a movie happened.
  • The whole event was recorded and is still distributed for download.
  • Notable writers where there

Guys, why do you keep ignoring that, and keep saying "sitting like a congresional hearing is not notable, delete"?--Striver 14:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FFS! THEIR NOTABILITY DOES NOT LIE THERE!. What next? "I can also talk, does them talking means that was notable?". I have on several places on this talk page listed why the event is higly notable among 9/11 Truth activists, and nowere has nobody stated that they are notable for aranging the even like a congress hearing! Stop giving strawman arguements! --Striver 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this article is NOT about a therory, this article is about a EVENT. --Striver 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholehartedly with that, im not a native english writer, and i do my best. I do creat notable articela about the subject, and i gooogle after sources, but my weak side is copyediting. But as things are, wikipedia is a mutliman project, each contributing with what we can. --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is Wikipolicy to summon attention if one believes it is needed. I annoy you for following Wikipedia policies? --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as non-notable. Association with a few notable people does not necessarily guarantee notability -- and the number of red links makes me wonder if those people are even notable themselves. (Additionally, many of the blue links are also AfDs.) bcasterlinetalk 22:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The red links are there because not every single person is notable, for example the families of victimes are arguebly not notable in themselves. If they are, ill be happy to create a article about them. Not all blue links are upp for AFD, and those that are will make it. In my view, they are bad faith nominations, driven by a desire to stop articles about 9/11 truthmovement to be writen. --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my sentiment. --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Citizens Commission was one of the most unique, important and key historic events of the early public response questioning the official story. There were only a few unique organized events like this that took place, where members of congress, the victim's families, and 9/11 truth activists all came together to demand answers. Bov 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an AfD discussion grows longer, the probability of a mention of Pokemon approaches 1. David Sneek 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. fancruft is a particularly vivid illustration of the reminder that Wikipedia isn't paper. Trying to reduce unencyclopedic articles in such well-defended fandoms would be like trying to haul the United States into a world court on human rights. --Dystopos 14:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.R.A.P.

Clearly a bunch of nonsense and a non-notable website to go along with it. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:37, 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 delete -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexxxism

Unheard-of neologism developed by non-notable person who runs non-notable websites. See C.R.A.P.. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:40, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Balls McGinty

I'm pretty sure this is either a hoax or a load of misinformation. This article from the BBC mentions something about how Wikipedia misrepresented the subject of the article. CrypticBacon 08:46, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arts in Decatur

Blatant advertising. —Xezbeth 08:54, 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 delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 00:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suckage

This forum has 25 registered users and no Alexa ranking. The article has been deleted before, but for being a dicdef. Punkmorten 09:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is not ranked and only has a certain number of users is completely moot, because that particular suckage site went up a few days ago. Other sucks forums have had hundreds of users. Disko 00:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Hey, my friend told me to come here and post keep. Is this the right place? -Friendvoter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disko (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP Criteria? What kind of fukking goofy fukks run that pisshole. It's a worldwide encyclopedia and there are members from all over the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.45.171 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP Suckage.

Suckage context and source: Conversations with friends, since spring 2003. "I'm going to be up half the night working on this project? It's going to be major suckage," apparent meaning: Suckage takes it's meaning from the extremely common slang word "suck" (v), meaning "to be terrible, horrible, etc." and turns it into a noun, so that everything that "sucks" can now be deemed "suckage". It is to be used in the most informal setting. type of word formation: Another example of affixation: suck + age (n-forming). dictionary entry: suckage, n. Anything that is terrible, unpleasant. [suck + -age] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.45.171 (talk • contribs)

  • KEEP This is the problem with the United States. Everyone preaches Free Speech, but if they don't like something they want it deleted. That is not Freedom of Speech, that's censorship. I have never scene a more hypocritical country in the world.


  • KEEP !!

An encyclopedia has entries for all kinds of subjects, even the ones that don't interest you in person. The suckage is a strange community that reaches religious proportions... it is more a culture with ti's own ideals that just an online community. People often don't know or understand what the Suckage is. This article tells these people what they want to know. If you think this article should go because you find it uninteresting, then go ahead and delete a whole bunch of other shitty articles. FREE SPEECH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoink, King Spammer (talk • contribs) (first edit ever)

ALSO.. WHAT GOOD ARE ALEXA RATINGS ??? THEY MEAN JACK !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreakwars (talk • contribs) (second edit ever)

  • KEEP

As a moderator of other BBS's I have seen the "SUCKAGE" in action, Not many people realize the groups origins were founded by Dan Parisi, this is important because it covers many aspects of Dan's biography.. a couple of other of Dan's claims to fame can be found as being the owner of the controversial domains whitehouse.com and madonna.com, the later in which, he was sewed by Madonna the singer for. I can point out MANY different sites on Wikpedia that reference another web site... but how many of them have an actual history ?? Maybe if you let the suckage "GANG" tell the tale of the suckage, you will see the relevance of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreakwars (talk • contribs) (first edit ever) The term Suckage should stay.

If you read the article, you'd see they mention that the SucksNET version of the forum only opened recently. I was familiar with Sucks500, and at its peak that forum had hundreds of active members and was one of the more popular free speech forums on the web.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.19.165 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP Free speech is a fundamental right of every human being and should not be censored, the suckage is as valid as anything.
This is the problem with the United States. Everyone preaches Free Speech, but if they don't like something they want it deleted. That is not Freedom of Speech, that's censorship. I have never scene a more hypocritical country in the world.
The term Suckage should stay.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hüd (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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid movement

I can't find any evidence that this subject is real. Booyabazooka 09:29, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quest Atlantis

Delete, Just doesn't seem notable enough for me as perWP:WEB Xorkl000 09:52, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gere Solid

This article has no citing sources and lack of information in order to be encyclopedic, in any case. None of the pages have linked to this page, and the contributior who created it has left. adnghiem501 09:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also listed Image:RGSlogo.jpg at WP:IFD, just in case. adnghiem501 09:59, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Mumford

Delete as non-notable under WP:BIO -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:56, 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 speedy delete nonsense. -SCEhardT 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pati Balázs

This article is a bio of an insignificant person named "Pati Balázs". The article has a respectable amount of fiction, and this guy even asks for money! --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 10:41, 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 delete -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junkslut

Protologism. One unrelated google hit. Was speedy'd, tag removed. Weregerbil 10:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this and other slanguage derived from Penny Arcade could be a sub-article on the Penny Arcade article

Not worth it. Penny-Arcade has published, what, hundreds of strips by now? You can't possibly cover every little non-notable phrase or bit they've made up. --Cyde Weys 20:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 reference to Wikipedia being the only source of reference info is the nail in the coffin. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a primary one. -Splashtalk 23:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COEBA

A worthy enough aim, but I find it hard to establish notability. Sounds like somethign widespread, but turns out to be a ministry of a single church. COEBA gets a few Googles, but as an ETLA many of these are not for this organisation. "Conference On Evangelizing Black America" gets around 150 unique Googles, including numerous directories. I know it has established an average of 1.5 churches per year, but is that actually a notable achievement? Maybe it is. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per non-notable unless someone can provide a source of membership to establish wider notablity. Delete redirectConference On Evangelizing Black America. Arbusto 05:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Krash (Talk) 16:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In Fundamental Baptist circles an organization "should" fall under the authority of a church. On the other hand, this church could not have accomplished this without the aid of a large number of supporting churches ("members" referenced above. Arbusto) The costs are just too high. To date, COEBA has started over 20 churches with two more to start in 2006. Notability becomes more apparent when you consider what existed back in 1994. Thoughout the U.S. You could probably count Independent Baptist churches pastored by black men on your two hands. Today they number around 50! Over one third from COEBA activity. Wikipedia is the only "reference info." source fortunate enough to provide info on this shift/change as it happens. --Ben 01:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "Wikipedia is the only "reference info." source fortunate enough to provide info on this shift/change as it happens." Wikipedia is not a primary source, therefore this is unverifiable. Stifle 11:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (am I allowed to vote twice?) So even though the article itself references 8 different articles from external sources that document the COEBA movement in 7 different years, is it still considered unverifiable?? Of course it is verified, but I thought it was being considered for deletion because of "non-noteablity" only. Please identify the reasons for suggested deletion so they can all be addressed. --Ben 15:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (am I allowed to vote twice?) No, you can only vote once. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-wikipedia member wrote regarding this issue:

COEBA stands as the only significant fundamental Baptist effort targeting church planting in black communities. The measurement of this organization's "notability" may be skewed due to a lack of understanding of COEBA's ongoing work. COEBA would be more properly termed a "movement" than an "organization." Its absence of tangible infrastructure renders its success difficult to quantify, particularly by the casual observer. However, closer inspection and polling of those directly affected shed light on this fundamental movement that is nothing short of a phenomenon.

In addition to the more than twenty churches planted, this effort has single-handedly redefined the perception of black Americans in fundamental circles. Of the more than 10,000 fundamental Baptist churches in the United States, significantly fewer than 100 are pastored by black American men. Most fundamental Christians have never served alongside a black person. The great majority of the pastors of those 10,000 churches have been acquainted with COEBA on some level. This has led to an unprecedented effort to understand, accept and evangelize black people either directly or indirectly through the ministry of these churches. COEBA has done more to raise awareness of the need and potential than all other efforts combined.

Throughout the 1990's, COEBA was a rare and dominant church planting voice in fundamentalism, thereby helping to spark a revival of church planting emphasis in many circles, irrespective of race. In the movement's brief twelve-year history it remains the unrivaled source of counsel, inspiration and hope for pastors, laymen and Christian workers with issues regarding fundamentalism and the black community. There simply is no other cause that holds the position that COEBA has in fundamental circles. More than 300 churches support this effort verbally and through financial contribution. A majority of fundamental Bible colleges and organizations stand firm in endorsement. With nearly five million missions dollars given through the ministries of COEBA churches, COEBA has proven that its foremost commitment remains that of world evangelism.

Perhaps the most important facet of this movement is its training of the next generation of Christians, i.e., children in churches across the country. These youth possess great talent and skill and are leaders among their peers. Should the Lord tarry, they will grow into America's first measurable generation of fundamental black Christians.

COEBA's regional and national gatherings have consistently drawn representatives from hundreds of churches, Bible colleges and Christian organizations. Its most effective work, however, is through grass roots influence, counsel, education, encouragement and peer-to-peer contact. The impact of the COEBA movement vis-a-vis fundamental circles is an ever-evolving force that is changing the face of fundamentalism.

It takes time, and, perhaps, a generation to change the psyche produced by decades of missteps regarding Black America. Still, there are many on the bandwagon. Here is what several prominent fundamental leaders have said about COEBA: (the quotes below are copied from a 1999 COEBA magazine)

"COEBA, the vision of Lou Baldwin, a preacher of the gospel, draws my admiration and attention because it applies Bible remedies to the sinful human hearts of Bible-starved souls..." Bob Jones III - President, Bob Jones University

"I thank the Lord for the COEBA movement with the great objective of soul winning and the building of churches... This organization is doing a work that is much needed." Dr. Lee Roberson - Chancellor, Tennessee Temple University

"New Testament curches are the salt and light America needs. Praise God for Pastor Lou Baldwin and COEBA -- a gift from God to Black America." Dr. Sam Davison - Pastor, Southwest Baptist Church

"Pastors across America should thank God for raising men like Dr. Lou Baldwin ... It is my prayer that through COEBA many thousands of lives will be influenced as we move into the 21st century." Dr. Paul Chappell - Pastor, Lancaster Baptist Church - President, West Coast Baptist College

"COEBA is on of the greatest biblical missionary movements of this generation." Dr. Don Sisk - President/General Director, Baptist International Missions, Inc.

"This is a movement that has the hand of God upon it. The Lord has provided visionary leadership through Dr. Lou Baldwin to reach so many millions with the gospel." Dr. Clarence Sexton - Pastor, Temple Baptist Church - President, Crown College

--Ben 13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Union Jam

Non notable, returns 64 hits on Google. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Babajobu 11:19, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeder Support for Image Boards

Non-notable (33 Google hits), possibly stale, software project. Article created by only (?) developer. --Pjacobi 11:27, 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 REDIRECT to Bob Barker seems sensible. -Splashtalk 23:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Barker

This one line article seems to be about someone actually called George Barker. The Panoramic painting page gives more information, this article is uneccesary, Delete. ::Supergolden:: 11:40, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem Reaction Solution

  • Keep the term is notable, Google gives 25 000 hits on "Problem Reaction Solution" [16] and 27 900 000 hits on Problem Reaction Solution [17]. Alex Jones movie is not THAT popular that i would creat 25 000 hits on a TERM used in it, clearly proving that the term is used widely outside the movie. It is actally irrelevant from where the term comes, 25 000 hits is enogh to make it notable in it self. Being delete once does not mean that it should remain deleted for ever. This is a new and fresh afd--Striver 12:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You mean its not notable since its used " almost exclusively in the context of cranky 9/11 conspiracy theories"? So, does that mean that Fard is also non-notable since it is used exclusivly by Muslims? Could you point out the pov, so i can correct it? --Striver 13:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are a lot more Muslims than 9/11 conspiracy theorists. That's why an Islamic concept such as Fard can be of significance to a great number of people, even non-Muslims. Problem Reaction Solution, on the other hand, seems to be a neologism used only within a small circle of persons with no discernible impact on the broader discourse (on 9/11 or anything else). See WP:NEO (or maybe, considering the seriousness of all this, rather WP:NFT :-). Greetings, Sandstein 14:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It being prominently used among the 9/11 truth movment makes it notable, it is not a neologism, it was used surely more than 20 times in 1999 by David Icke when in University of Toronto Only that in it self makes it notable. --Striver 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, even then it warrants at the most a well-sourced brief mention in the main 9-11 conspiracy theories article, and not its own article. Even so, what you call the "9-11 truth movement" is objectively the viewpoint of a small fringe minority (and for most others it's somewhere between paranoid silliness and downright offensive). All those articles of yours might be seen as being designed to give this fringe more weight than they are due - or, in other words, as POV-pushing. Greetings, Sandstein 17:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a 9/11 neologism, it was used prominently already in 1999.

Further, not that it maters, the 9/11 truth movement is not a "small fringe minority". Does "small fringe minority" include a:

No? BUT, even if it was a "small fringe minority", deleting it is a violation of Wikipedia policies. All those articles of yours might be seen as being designed to give this fringe more weight than they are due - or, in other words, as POV-pushing" is against Wikipolicies:

None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

Source: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight

IF we can have Ass worship, why not this? --Striver 17:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


25 000 google and you say " fails to demonstrate notability"? --Striver 13:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google does not mean everything for notability, you know. --Terence Ong 14:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but Alex Jones, Dacid Icke using the term does make it notable in it self, even witout 25 000 google hits. You got several articles starting and describing the term, that does make it notable in it self. You see films using that term 30 times, that makes it notable. --Striver 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, we can have Facesitting, Smotherbox, Body worship or even Queening stool, but not this? Common people, what are you doing? --Striver 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're following WP:CSD. --Aaron 18:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. Striver's often divisive and inflammatory, and openly admits that his views are waaay outside the norm. I think it's because of these things that this article is getting deep-sixed. This term has been used in news sources, and is in use all over the web. Yes, often in tinfoil-hat-style conspiracy diatribes. But it's in use. (Striver's also right about ass worship -- wtf is that about?) This also seems a lot like an extension of the "Rally 'Round the Flag" effect, which seems to be the academically accepted version of this same concept (i.e., no shady government conspiracies, lizard men, Illuminati, space Nazis, etc.). If that article had been written, I'd suggest merging this content over there. In fact, as it stands, if this article survives (doesn't look promising), I'll probably move it to Rally 'round the flag and rewrite it... muahhahhahahahaha. JDoorjam Talk 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Ehh, nevermind. Upon review, there's not really much there that could be salvaged for Rally 'round the flag. JDoorjam Talk 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

something used in 1999 is not a neologism. How large is the group using Facesitting? --Striver 21:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article is a one-liner neologism dicdef, followed by an unencyclopedic mess of 9/11 conspiracy theory POV ranting. Another example of a recent rash of such articles. Weregerbil 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are deleting a article that gets 25 000 google hits and is a major term among a significant minority, only since it haves to much information? --Striver 01:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Page is updated, votes regardin neologism and content must be re-evalutated. This still gives 25 000 google hits. --Striver 23:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Guys, you are confusing notability and verifaiability with.... i dont know... The term is real, what it means or is used for is totaly irrelevant for the keeping or deleting of the article! --Striver 11:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still delete as one-liner neologism dicdef followed by a couple of pages of non-encyclopedic 9/11 conspiracy theory cruft and a laundry list of individual peoples' opinions (now complete with Adolf!). An article that professes to talk about something, but in reality is an opinion pushing piece about something totally different. Updating the page by adding even more cruft doesn't make the it better because the cruft is the fatal flaw in the first place. Weregerbil 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this non notable, but Ass worship, Divide and rule, Facesitting, Smotherbox, Body worship or even Queening stool, is not? Give a answer to that! Your only propblem is with what the term is USED for, not notability, and that is censorship. Content with articles are dealt with, that called editing, problems are addred at talk page. You dont delet a perfectly verifiablen and notable word over conten issues! Why not delete Islamofascism (term)?--Striver 15:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you improve the article so that it is NPOV? So that nobody reading the article can guess that you have a POV agenda on 9/11, anti-SomeCountry, or anything else? I could cut the Example and Use sections but I fear fierce resistance and drawn-out rv wars to any POV-neutralizing edits. Weregerbil 16:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you are meaning that the article is being delete since its being accused of being POV, without any atempts to NPOVing?`--Striver 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. I vote delete as one-liner neologism dicdef (incidentally followed by a couple of pages of biased chatter). Is there a real article waiting to be born? A verifiable article about a notable term, not about 9/11 conspiracy theories and anti-SomeCountry propaganda? I don't see it happening due to circumstances, but will be happy to be proven wrong! Weregerbil 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something is NOT a neologism if it was used in the 1990. It is notable, 25 000 google hits. It is used by the most prominent conspiracy theorist, again making it notable. and its greatly more notable, used and contentfull than Queening stool. You are obviously agendadriven.--Striver 18:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got 61,500 hits on "red suspender viola". You can get multiple Google hits on the oddest things. Zora 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got Zeor (0) hits [20] --Striver 02:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, you used quote marks and I didn't. Zora 03:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I do have an agenda: make Wikipedia a reliable source of information. It is my opinion that this article has a snowball's chance in hell of being a positive contribution to the quality of Wikipedia. This is due to what I perceive to be fierce resistance to making it anything but a laundry list of anti-SomeCountry propaganda and 9/11 conspiracy theorizing. I will be happily surprised by being proven wrong! And I will now be waiting quietly for that to happen, because anything I say will just probably make the resistance dig in deeper in its trenches. Over and out. Weregerbil 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform the readers that Weregerbil has made zero (0) atempts of editing this article. As if it matered, POV issues, if they even existed, are to be solved by editing and talk page, not deleting the article. He is all talk. --Striver 18:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Weregerbil is under no obligation to attempt to edit an article before joining its AfD discussion. And WP:GD makes it clear that when an article's POV issues are considered extreme enough, an AfD is a perfectly acceptable alternative to "editing and talk": If the text in question is a passage or section within an article that is otherwise satisfactory, it is usually removed by simply editing it out of the article. If, however, all or most of the article is problematic, the page itself may be removed. --Aaron 22:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a single quote from the article that is POV? I doubt it. --Striver 00:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Problem Reaction Solution" on Google gives 26,200 hits, while - quite interestingly - "Problem Reaction Solution" -Icke gives 20,900 hits, meaning that claims that this is purely some Icke's mumbo-jumbo neologism are simply not true. Conspiracy theorists' speak? Yes. And why not? From what I've seen in the comments above, it is as if some people think that keeping this article on Wikipedia would be tantamount to saying that Bush orchestrated 9/11. This is not so: understand that it is perfectly acceptable to create articles about viewpoints that we find unappealing and/or downright wrong. This article doesn't do it in the best of ways, but this only means it should be improved. Yes, one could rightly stick NPOV/copyedit/cleanup/whatever notices on this article. But I see no good reason why it should be deleted as a matter of principle. GregorB 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not appear to fall foul of the policy in a claer-cut manner at any point. Batmanand | Talk 14:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per GregorB. It is not a good article, but that is no reason to delete. David Sneek 17:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... unfortunately. Basically like everyone else said. Yes, it's conspiracy-cruft, but it's referenced enough: the term is widely used enough that we should have an article on it. And we can't just redirect to Thesis, antithesis, synthesis because Hegel used TAS to mean many things, while PRS its really only used to mean "conspiracy"; the meaning is related, but not the same. However, I would be much in favor of shortening the article by quite a lot. It should be something like three paragraphs long: one paragraph defining the term, and referring to Hegel, one paragraph about the term's creationg by Icke, and one list of references, one line per reference, not one paragraph per reference. If the thing is kept, and no one else will do it, I can do that. GRuban 14:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Striver, please, you could at least try to make it a halfway decent article. As it stands, it's spectacularly bad. Personally, I think that we absolutely don't need it and should put all the "please improve me" templates we have on top of it. But unfortunately, I see no reason to delete it after the update. I'm tempted to abstain from my vote, but I guess that would be too much of a cop-out... Striver, I think you should cut the article in half at the very least, and try to layout it in a way that doesn't hurt my head. Please note that I don't have an agenda beyond keeping crappy articles out of Wikipedia as far as possible. I don't care about your conspiracy theories, as long as you clearly label them as such and keep them to a maximum of a few sentences here and there. That's about all consensus will give you, so don't fight it. You are entitled to an opinion, but NOT to valuable space in articles that should cover views that are way, way more subsantiated than yours.Mstroeck 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. KnowledgeOfSelf 12:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_J_Moss

Seems to be vanity? Paul J Moss is not notable as far as I can tell. Googling turned up only a few bizarre hits: :http://www.astronomy.net.nz/frame19.htm (Scroll down that particular page!)
'Googling' turns up 6 million on some days and 12 million on others. The subject has been in #1 response for 5 out of 6 years, and many of the top 10 for many of those years. FACT. moza 10:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
removed my single vote. If discussion doesn't take place here then how can the voting be valid, almost nil discussion took place elsewhere, and the cut and pasters have ripped this page apart so many times, it doesn't make sense, it's not the truth, it has serious ommisions, and it certainly doesnt have any balance. The history of this page shows blatant ignorance of the facts, superficiality on a broad scale, meanspiritedness that I knew existed but found hard to believe every other time I encountered it. The philosphy here is said to be construction, so if the article doesn't fit the rules, why not alter it, build a new one, get the known facts, be vigilant against how things appear on the surface, be all that a wikipedian can be. I have witnessed crowd behaviour here, emotion and assumption, hardly any reality, its a good learning zone about ourselves, at least I contributed to exposing that aspect to the clear minded. moza moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - owning a few domain names, sticking your name in a huge font on a couple of websites to fool google and taking a few pictures of the sky isn't really a big mark of notability, however worthwhile the last occupation is. It's a vanity article too - if it weren't for a humungous amount of edits by the article's subject, the article wouldn't exist. That said, I'm loathe to enourage or endorse the proposer of the AfD since he's got some ulterior motives regarding the article subject --Aim Here 16:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the subject owns many domain names and they have extremely useful content, and are linked to by many great worldwide institutions. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fabrication to support your POV. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Um, what? Xtra is the largest ISP in New Zealand! I'm on dial up so my IP is dynamic. Are you going to post every Xtra IP address as proof of a conspiracy? Anyhoo, I didn't mean to cause offense, it's just that your entry seems to violate the terms and spirit of Wiki. If you've done something notable, tell the world about it, and I'll withdraw my delete vote. Oh and gotta love Google Cache... here's that page as it was _before_ you hastily edited out all the questionable content (minus pics for speed): http://www.geocities.com/eastriverqueen/frame19.htm
its illegal to copy and hack other peoples websites, and bad taste to mis use the hacked version to promote your own POV. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages"
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability as an astronomer. A Google search for "Paul Moss" astronomy comes up with 702 hits with few verifiable sources [21]. A similar search on Google books came up empty. A search for "Paul Moss" came up with a number of names but none that was immediately associated with this guy. A Google Scholar credit for "Paul Moss" astronomy came up with two entries [22]. In short, he doesn't seem notable enough as yet as an astronomer nor is there any evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this user used the previously unpublished search name.moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the pages have either been deleted or put in process by the author.moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Vanity, not noteable etc. Even if the nomination was in bad faith the article still doesn't appear to meet criteria. The guy who is vandalizing the astronomy stuff should see the quote on my user page btw. - SimonLyall 23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Aim Here. -- Avenue 00:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)*Delete — Wouldn't even satisfy the average professor test. I think it's great what he's doing, but it's just not all that notable. Sorry. :) — RJH 02:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
how about writing an article to serve the same function? moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EVERY web page promotes itself. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldnt be, but when POV enters then it becomes one, moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes i wondered how that can be allowed as well, the rules are used when it suits, and ignored when it suits, crowd behaviour. (i'd prefer to not see the threats though.)moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
!!! KEEP !!! Paul has some amazing photo's that have been recognised internationally, and the sharing of pictures between sites is mutual. Paul also has some very valid and interesting views, and i think deletion would be a big mistake and a big loss of content. Get a clue Bongos.  (original by 219.89.179.18)
yes i brought this back and no its not mine, check the ip. it was deleted by user 72.242.25.5 in his grand anonymous cleanup. I try and sign my work, proudly and with ID. moza 11:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 ALL. -Splashtalk 23:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UHW Wrestling, UHW Universal Champion,UHW InterNational Championship, UHW X-Rated Championship, UHW Tag-Team Championship

The articles below do Does not appear to satisfy the guidelines for inclusion for websites. brenneman{T}{L} 12:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amended per Englishrose. - 22:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Important Note: I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all about this E-wrestling and using wikipedia as a web host.
Englishrose 22:09, 27 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. However, it's been turned into a redirect which appears to have stuck, so I'll leave it. If the article gets repeatedly reverted, it can have its history deleted or be protected or something. 70.29.239.249's opion on admins is duly set aside. -Splashtalk 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Ruffolo

Delete as non-notable under WP:BIO. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Note: in my opinion, administrators should not be able to vote. 70.29.239.249 16:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The majority (if not all) Vaughan council members record no results on Google news. I don't believe TheKMan's vote should count as he is not familar with the city.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.239.249 (talk • contribs)
Note: in my opinion, administrators should not be able to vote. 70.29.239.249 05:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The opinions of people have already accrued two "you're gonna get blocked if you keep that up" warnings, when their first-ever Wikipedia edit was less than 24 hours ago, kinda sorta tend not to be taken as seriously as the opinions of people who've been around here for a few years, and know how things work, and have established relatively trustworthy reputations. Especially when you're misreading them as actually meaning a comment that was obviously intended sarcastically. HTH, HAND. Bearcat 06:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My first edit was months ago. I choose not to sign up because I do not use this system very often. I am also doing nothing to get blocked. You told me to stop with the personal attacks and I have complied. I am allowed to question the rules. I feel, as an admin, you are far too personally invested in this discussion. 70.29.239.249 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by Talk:Vaughan municipal election, 2006, you most certainly have not complied with my statement about personal attacks — your most recent personal attack was posted 25 minutes after you posted this comment. And if you'd care to point out how I'm personally invested in the discussion, I'm all ears — considering that I'm an NDP member in downtown Toronto who's never met anybody involved in this matter and has never been to Vaughan in my life apart from passing through it on the 400, I'd love to know where you think my purported "bias" on the subject lays. Bearcat 18:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the above clarification remark was removed by 70.29.239.249 here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the text Cambridge. You appear to have ulterior motives when you post such things. I took off the clarification because it is not necessary anymore. Pm_shef's comment does not make any sense. Read it. I fixed my comment a few minutes after I posted and the clarification should be removed. Since the admins can do this, I hearby ask that you remove the irrelevant clarification. Thank you. 70.29.239.249 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's that simple. The other candidates may have notability outside of the scope of this particular political race. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being a candidate does ot amount to notablility. However, incumbant people do a lot of work, which if notable, should be documented. Stress is on the notability of the work done by them. Candidates can't do much with respect to notability in being a candidate unless they are engaged in some historic battle, which does require notability out of candidature. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to bring to everyone’s attention that John Greer a candidate for councillor in Toronto posted his own article in Jan. (which he admitted in the talk page). Soon after he posted it someone put it up for deletion. Even though he posted it himself the article won the debate to stay an article since he is a current candidate for councillor in the 2006 municipal election. With all do respect to Greer he really has not accomplished enough in the past to be an article and is pretty non-notable. His won the debate to stay so shouldn’t Ruffolo’s also? --Eyeonvaughan 09:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't won any debate — there hasn't been one. Somebody suggested on the talk page that it should be listed on AFD, but as of today nobody's ever actually listed it for deletion. Frankly, I sincerely doubt that it would survive an AFD, but being here because nobody's nominated it for deletion in the first place is hardly the same thing as actually surviving an AFD. Bearcat 09:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't up for deletion? whats this then? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Greer&oldid=36682359 I looked through the history and found a "speedy deletion" then the speedy deletion message was taken down--Eyeonvaughan 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More info: I have nominated John Greer for AfD. This should settle the debate. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I added more information to make this candidate a bit more notable. 70.29.239.249 16:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 07:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SplOg

Delete as non-notable. (Google search yields only 3 results.) -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:52, 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 speedy delete as recreation of deleted content, CSD G4. Chick Bowen 20:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Friends... Different Personalities

Prodded under not a crystal ball. Prod tag removed, improperly restored (though probably with no ill intent). Moving here as contested. It's Disney Channel show for 2008. Delete as too far in the future to bother speculating about. 12:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC) NickelShoe 12:56, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cycloball

Tagged as speedy, but not quite. Better to be examined with more eyeballs. Abstain. brenneman{T}{L} 12:59, 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 Speedy delete G$. -Doc ask? 13:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar Mountain Software

Previously deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_9#Cougar_Mountain_Software Speedy delete. Sleepyhead 13:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cougar Mountain Software

Not notable. Advertising. Not up to levels of WP:CORP Sleepyhead 09:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 07:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Dawn

Rock band, doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND. PROd tag removed by the author. Sandstein 13:09, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion//User talk:86.10.231.219

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Brett

Advertisement for non-notable book, non-notable author. Claims to have invented ROTFL acronym too! -- Aim Here 13:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete whether or not the subject is notable., this article is (a) spam and (b) a Geogre's Law failure. If somebody feels motivated to fix it up in the next few days I'll change my vote, but we don't need the article as nominated. Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Capitalistroadster for cleaning it up; I think it's still delete since (a) it's a "pocket-sized book" (i.e. very small) and (b) it does not seem to be widely available (I couldn't find it on Amazon or Barnes and Noble, for example). But at least if it gets kept it's no longer part of her relentless self-publicity campaign. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I liked the quote from the critic: this book is original and brilliant. Unfortunately, that which is original is not brilliant, and that which is brilliant is not original. I think we've seen a few articles herebaouts which fit that description :-)
Changed to No vote after rewrite. Whether someone with single book is notable enough is question I can't answer. Pavel Vozenilek 00:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Her website claims that she's written for "New Woman, Vogue, Vogue Girl, 9to5 Magazine, The Sydney Morning Herald, and the Daily Telegraph" [24]. Some of the pages turned up by Google [25] seem to suggest that she's somewhat notable in Australia, although Amazon doesn't show anything [26]. (Maybe her next brilliant book?) But since WP:BIO only requires an audience of 5000 or more, I think she qualifies -- if just barely. The style of the current article ("dazzled", "catapulted", "positively effervescent", etc.) needs some NPOV and cleanup work though. If the consensus is delete, I'll change my vote. bcasterlinetalk 16:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and strong cleanup. The article is positively saccharine in its descriptors of Ms Brett but it doesn't have a lot to say about her actual worth as a journalist. Book reviews? Citations? Awards for journalistic endeavour? The acronyms and text images mentioned in her book also appear to have existed prior to its publication, Google groups search example.  (aeropagitica)  18:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom and JzG. Probable WP:VANITY/WP:AUTO violation; this article is Rosewiki's only contribution to Wikipedia. I'd even argue it's worth a speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Aaron 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Brett has been featured in major Australian publications and websites. She is notable. Improve content. This is a stub. Remove critical review text since it reads like promotional material. Include information of how she has influenced Australian culture.  Cdcon  19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The book exists and was reasonably widely reviewed in Australia. A search of an Australian newspaper database for "Samantha Brett" came up with 16 hits all of which appear to be about her. Capitalistroadster 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten this article. No change of position from Keep. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 26 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 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beurre mixer

This article is a dictdef that has been transwikid to Wiktionary (Transwiki:Beurre mixer) James084 13:41, 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 largely moot since it's already been portalfied which seems like an alright compromise. I'm going to remove the cross-namespace redirect though. For archival sake, the poralfied version is at Portal:Puerto Rico/Did you know. -Splashtalk 00:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know - Puerto Rico

WP:NOT a collection of random information Delete -Doc ask? 13:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw it mentioned on talk pages of users I hang out with but didn't see any keep urging, do you have some diffs? And if so? so what? I mentioned it on Talk:Puerto Rico for that matter. Users with well established talk pages (evincing some history here) and a particular history of editing Puerto Rico pages seem naturals for notification, we're talking about contributions from the non-footwear community here, after all. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what if you make it this way: sort all the facts into groups and then put them into the adequate articles under trivia section, like: Geography of Puerto Rico, Economy of Puerto Rico etc. Making it this way will make the other articles more interesting and it won't be too long. --Tone 17:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Joelr31. Tony the Marine 00:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote, now that the page has been moved. Adniel 05:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per WP:NOT and Adniel. --BWD (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to templatespace. Set it up the way the main DYK is... the template contains the current tidbits and the template talk has an archive of all the previously displayed tidbits. A few trivia facts at a time are nice but the whole list may not be necessary in articlespace. (note, the DYK at the portal and the one in the main article should be driven by the same template and work from the same list of facts, IMHO, rather than being separate (and different in appearance) as they are now) If that's not acceptable, then keep it the way it is. This comment is NOT to be construed as a delete comment under any circumstances. ++Lar: t/c 02:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, you mean like the already existing Template:Wikiportal:Puerto Rico/Did you know? Adniel 02:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That template's talk page is empty though, unlike the main DYK template which has the stash of previously used and not yet used factlets. (or trivions, if you prefer, it's a UOM thing I guess)... Move these facts there, and then use the template in the portal in the main article too. What fooled me was that the template invocation on the portal page is buried in a bunch of <div>s and stuff and I missed the template inclusion. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not support a merge into any article, as long as that merge will be in the form of new "trivia" sections. Please, if there is going to be a merge, please do it so that it flows nicely within the text. I prefer "Although it is a misconception that in his time, Napoleon Bonaparte was a man of short stature, he was 5'6.5", a perfectly acceptable height for Frenchmen of his time," in the appropriate section, over "Did you know Napoleon Bonaparte was actually 5'6.5"?" Adniel 02:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lar. They should be driven by the the same information. The original idea was a template with the template talk pertaining the unused facts (as the wiki DYK) but it was changed for simplicity for users. The portal is a work in progress so please bear with me on the <div>. Also if it is to be kept it should be in the style of the wiki main page since it's an accepted style and it was the form from which it was conceived. Joelito 03:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sweat the div stuff, I was just explaining why I missed it, not criticising! ++Lar: t/c
Also, I think links to Did You Know - Puerto Rico should link to the portal template, if the article is deleted and merged into other articles. Adniel 02:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly do not see why the information should be relegated to the portal. I think main space is a good place to have the information because people do not usually access portals. Joelito 03:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because of WP:NOT. --BWD (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read WP:NOT and I do not see any of the topics applying in this case. Certainly I do not find " a collection of random information" in there Joelito 03:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --BWD (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every one of these facts already IS in the encyclopedia though, and the links in the DYK tidbits show you where, this DYK is just a different way to get connected. As a surfer (I hit random articles for fun, for the discovery of what I might find...), I like to find interesting things that I didn't know were connected. Moving the facts to the specific articles reduces the serendipity effect by burying them where they're harder to find. They're all relevant to Puerto Rico, after all. Unless you're saying you think the DYK concept as a whole is flawed? I admit a POV there, I'm 6 for 6 on articles I initially created that were nominated for DYK being selected for the main page so I obviously like DYK. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the Did You Know on the main page and other portals and this one is that it is not in the article space. Shall we create similar articles for every county, and for other subjects?
Did You Know - American Flags
I don't want Wikipedia to turn into a trivia website. Adniel 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't create similar articles for every main article. That sort of feels like a strawdog to me... Please review my input to consensus (I hate calling it a "vote") above... I said move it to templatespace and make it be one unified template that is used both on the portal and the main article, with keep as a second choice. But I'd say that any subject big enough to have a portal may well be deserving of a DYK if the portal editors want to make one. They're adding valuable content and links. (your flag example would be fine in my book, as a template, if WP ever gets large enough to have a portal for American flags... (maybe it already does? I didn't go check!) Again, are you against DYK as a concept? ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with DYK, but only in the portal pages and template namespaces, with DYK templates not being used in mainspace articles. Adniel 03:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that someone has already moved the article into the Portal namespace, so I'm fine with the article now. Can the Did You Know section be taken out of Puerto Rico? A link to the Wikiportal has already been put at the bottom of the page. Adniel 03:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK in or out would be something to bring up on the Talk:Puerto Rico page, I suspect. Personally I think it is interesting to see how well a DYK in a lead article works, I'd say let it stay there (as an invocation) for a while... Now that the article has been moved (portalfy-ed) maybe this AfD is now moot? Dunno. If the consensus comes out delete though, now the previous DYK at the portal would be deleted I think as they're being merged... that would be a bad outcome. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 26 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 as attack page. Just zis Guy you know? 15:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Tan

Demeaning article created by a user with no other edits CG janitor 14:04, 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dano Shen Ryu and Zen Texas

Not encylopedic. Does not provide references, advertorial tone, does not provide evidence that it is to be discriminated from multitude of other similar entities. Also adding to this the Zen Texas article, same author, same reasons. brenneman{T}{L} 14:21, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 07:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kundan Amitabh

nn bio; Vanity page; 185 hits on Google, mostly from WP forks and his own sites; mostly contributed by an anon IP which also worked on a related (but notable) topic, Angika language; The plot thickens because I believe that the ip is used by User:Kundanamitabh who also edited Angika language around the same time - and thus I believe that the ip's edits also violate WP:AUTO. A Strong delete -- Gurubrahma 14:30, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YayPit

An obscure game server and its associated online forum. Little or no impact outside its core group of users. Brought here as a contested PROD, as an anon removed the tag. Joyous | Talk 14:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete yaypit people are just trolling wikipedia, they're a bunch of adolescents seeking attention.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Unclear on merging or not and no outright position to delete. IMO, we really should be avoiding such navel gazing. -Splashtalk 00:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and public opinion

Title is misleading--"Wikipedia editing scandals" more accurately describes the content. The topic seems inherently POV, and this write-up certainly is. betsythedevine 14:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC) (Article history)[reply]

Comment: I would definitely oppose a rename to Wikipedia editing scandals. That title is inherently POV, since judging what is a "scandal" expresses a very non-neutral opinion about the allegedly scandalous events in questin. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I agree, that's a bad article title--just my attempt to describe what's now in the article Wikipedia_and_public_opinion. As for public opinion of Wikipedia, maybe what we need is a category that would link to such scattered articles as Wikipedia#Evaluations, Criticism_of_Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Criticisms, Wikipedia:Testimonials, Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great, and Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections. betsythedevine 18:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of those pages is at all relevant to this article, since most are within the WP namespace. If anything, the meaning of WP:SELF is that article space pages should not link to Wikipedia space internal pages. Criticisms of Wikipedia is roughly on topic, maybe I'll add a "see also". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's right, irrelevant. Your suggestions indicate that your (unspecified) NPOV claim is based on a fear that these articles are being used as examples to discredit Wikipedia. While this is not happening in the article, it is happening widely in the press.
You have the relationship backwards. It is How Wikipedia effects public opinion, not the public opinion of Wikipedia.Yeago 22:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the article exists, I can certainly see the motivation for the merge sentiment: it's mostly roughly things where the mass media was critical of WP. However, I've changed the intro a little bit to allow expansion to a topic more fitting to the title. Ideally, I'd like the article to include areas where WP affects public opinion, but not simply as a criticism of WP (not necessarily praise as such either, but more subtle external mentions of WP's effects, especially in how people understand authority and knowledge). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With the growth of Wikipedia popularity number of people angry with this or that will grow as well and sensationalist media will pick it. Stating obvious truth that it is not possible to please everyone doesn't make an article. Pavel Vozenilek 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Yeago comments, the idea of the article isn't "What does the public think of WP?" Rather it is "How does WP influence public opinion on other topics". See the comment I just added to the article talk page for more clarification. It's sort of like an article on Conservative think tanks and public opinion... presumably it wouldn't be about "What do people think of the think tanks". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I simply happen to believe that contributions bordering on propaganda should be internally tracked.
As for obviousness, you could remove thousands of sections with that logic.Yeago 02:30, 26 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 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMath

Delete vaporware software project, no files on SourceForge Michaelfavor 15:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have used a prod tag, instead of AfD. -- Michaelfavor 15:27, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Escape

I don't believe this home-made game meets the criteria defined in WP:SOFTWARE. The article was created by user:Nickdude9110, who appears to be the author of the game itself. Although asked by user:NickelShoe to discuss a proposed speedy on this article, the author did not do so. Googlers should note that there are games with similar names such as The Dungeon Escape and the rather entertaining Dungeon Escape, neither of which should be mistaken for this game. Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:45, 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 Speedy delete (non-notable bio) xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foo Chee Hoe

Non notable unwikified bio stub Maniacgeorge 15:58, 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 MERGE to List of cinemas in Singapore — the nomination makes a fairly compelling case for this! -Splashtalk 00:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lido 8 Cineplex

An article of a multiplex. This is a very notable multiplex in my country, Singapore, but does not need an article of its own on Wikipedia. Delete Terence Ong 16:10, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orchard Cineplex

The article really reads like an ad. Again, this one of the more notable multiplexes in Singapore, but not needed for an article on its own. Delete Terence Ong 16:29, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of wrestlers over 300 pounds

Tagged for speedy as pointless, unreferenced, unwikified, unconverted, unnecessary list - all of which are valid, and I'll add that it's also completely arbitrary and contains systemic bias, since no Sumos are listed. However, none of these is a speedy criterion, more's the pity. Just zis Guy you know? 16:52, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Eyes

Neologism, unverified and probably unverifiable. Article suggests googling 'Google Eyes' which brings up thousands of, AFAICT, unrelated instances of the phrase -- Aim Here 16:54, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

34 Elton road

Completely non-notable. Doesn't seem to match any WP:CSD criteria though (the closest being A7), hence this AFD. TheParanoidOne 17:28, 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 delete -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.seduction.fast

Non-notable website and also is not in NPOV. Erebus555 17:29, 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 DELETE and REDIRECT. -Splashtalk 00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orpheus and Eurdice

Delete The page is quite childish description of the myth that is far better written in the Orpheus page Ruziklan 17:38, 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 delete —Xezbeth 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan/Spartan connection

Original research. I had put a prod tag on it, but Sam Spade removed it without explanation. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can Zoe vote to make an article an external link.WHEELER 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this is accomplished, as I have never seen this done before. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example for you Zoe. Here is the deletion page for "Culture defines politics" which they decided to make an external link: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Culture_defines_politics. This is the article which I discovered recently that they were trying to "wash". I created it but ****they**** deleted as "orignial research" but later on the hypocrites liked it so much that they were attempting to steal it!!!! Just like this article and the article on Revolution within the form, they will delete as "original research" and then, sometime in the future they will steal it. Or if someone else writes it, they will accept it. Me, they just hate. I could write an article on "Why the Sky is Blue" and they will delete it. See, I have a higher standard than anybody else around here, I should be proud of it, All work done by me will be deleted, nothing will satisfy them. They also deleted the Classical definition of republic as "original research". There was a comment recently posted about that Talk:Republic#Article_is_still_horrible. I think it speaks volumes about what goes on around here. Wikipedia is a popularity and ideological contest. If you don't fit in, and meet their approval---you get harrassed and your stuff gets deleted. "Merit" means nothing.WHEELER 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject itself presupposes a conclusion which contradicts (or bypasses) the current standard view (there have been significant developments in Aegean prehistory since the 19th century), of which there is no mention. Article takes texts at face value.--Nema Fakei 00:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of voting to delete, why don't you improve the article? No article starts off being perfect, yet everything I do everybody expects it to be perfect but nobody here at Wikipedia has the same standard put to them like what is done to me. Improve the Article.WHEELER 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the articles you've (mostly) written I would like to improve when I have the time and the resources. This one, however, I don't think can ever really approach a good and useful article. Even with a total rewrite, the name would need changing.
  • Delete -- WHEELERcruft. I knew it before I even checked the article history Haikupoet 02:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The article is in need of cleanup and expansion, with more input from more recent secondary sources - what is the state of current scholarship on this topic? The article should probably be moved to a new title - the name - X/X seems very unencyclopedic. An alternative would be to merge it into the existing Dorian article. --Joe 00:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle 11:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Macrakis 14:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I won't vouch for or against the article's accuracy or value, but I want to point out that for as long as the text is kept, the external link to Wikinfo has to be retained as well -- this is explicitly required by the GFDL, section 4F. —David Wahler (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentCritical views of Wikipedia/Policy CriticismsWHEELER 00:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe subject of the article is NOT original research. I quote from a published Classicist!!! He is actually responding in his quotes to earlier opinions. He proves the contention that Sparta got most of her stuff from Crete. I have of course made other deductions of value. You are free to delete those. I prefer an external link though because this of my learning in the subject area, I provide more evidence. Second, This article does fill a hole in the learning of the matrix of Dorian culture and Greek culture. This is nowhere on Wikipedia. This article is to fill a niche that you can not provide. An external link to this article is necessary and right. This article is necessary to understand What Socrates and Plato said.WHEELER 23:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WHEELER's POV-ridden essays have very little salvagable encyclopedic information. older ≠ wiser 02:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Misinformation Team

Exceedingly minor, informal group of people at the State Department non-notable (only 102 Google hits, almost all of which are from left-wing bloggers); created by Striver as part of his ongoing campaign to make a POV argument on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. Aaron 17:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lets do that, lets delete official State Department groups, only since i created it.... --Striver 18:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a page for the State Department HR Department? I'll bet it's larger than this. --Mmx1 18:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tag some 9/11 conspiracy theories on the HR dept article? If you can figure out a way to do that we surely should have it ASAP. Weregerbil 19:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, where are the delete votes? Dont tell me you created a AFD just out of spite for me, but dont actualy want to vote delete? --Striver 19:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am waiting for someone to come up with evidence that this team is notable. Is there any? So far the article seems to be just an excuse for listing out of context second hand quotes of some journalist playing devil's advocate on his political gossip column. Weregerbil 20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason for the Wiki to monitor the often clandestine media manipulation by government agencies dedicated to either disseminating information or countering disinformation. Remember the fake news bruhaha? Almost by definition, an entity of this type, especially within the highest reaches of the US government, is noteworthy as an influence upon institutional memory, and is entirely relevant to the Wiki's fundamental mission. Ombudsman 03:10, 26 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. This seems to be the significantly dominant position before the rewrite, after the rewrite and altogether. -Splashtalk 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution within the form

This was created by WHEELER with the full knowledge that it is original research and not appropriate on Wikipedia. Let's Delete this. --Improv 17:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When doing a Google Search there are many hits on this. Original research. Bah-humbug.WHEELER 23:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • The difference between the two is that your essay, interesting though it is (and surprisingly, a few of my IRL friends who are also greek have expressed similar sentiments), comes to conclusions of its own, while things like Kwisatz Haderach (personally I find it odd we even have articles on characters) are more of a descriptive thing. I don't think anyone here is saying that your writing is bad, it just isn't suitable for the kind of project Wikipedia is. You can be proud to have a well-argued, well-researched perspective, and if I were you I'd certainly make it available to the world somewhere, I just don't think here is the place. Take care. --Improv 08:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not a link farm. Make deleted is good, make external link is unacceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 23:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's an important concept and WP should have some mention of it. Words change their meaning over time, sometimes by natural development, sometimes by design. However, I suspect this would be much better written as an article (or article section) on diachronic pragmatics. WP's current treatment of historical linguistics seems unhelpful.--Nema Fakei 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Many" Google hits? I see only 687 [28]. -- Nikodemos 05:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Verifiability is in question also. Stifle 09:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed the original research part of this article, which was normative rather than descriptive. What remains is a discussion of a concept named by Garet Garrett and its historical antecedents. I am not sure this is notable enough to be encyclopedic, but it is no longer the original-research essay that it was previously. I would tend to think it is not notable -- the phrase only comes up twice each in books.google.com and scholar.google.com and 291 times in general Google search -- but perhaps it is important enough to parts of the Old Right to be worth mentioning. --Macrakis 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Macrakis. And you are also right in "...it is important enough to parts of the Old Right to be worth mentioning." Thanks for your work and for pointing out that this info is also important to a small minority of people---maybe not for the General Public---but for the few remaining out here, Thanks.WHEELER 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The phrase and its meaning might merit a mention in the article on Garrett, but it doesn't seem to be a term used by many other than him. - SimonP 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - verifiable and potentially useful to users of the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While Macrakis' edits have done much to make the article less POV, the article is essentially about a relatively uncommon neologism. At best, perhaps some mention of the term could be made in the Garrett article and the term redirected there. older ≠ wiser 02:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This concept seems to have a pretty small following in the world at large. It only pulls about 145 unique Google hits, several of which are due to the promotion of the term by WHEELER himself: [29]. The idea could be concisely and comfortably expressed and placed in context in a few sentences of Garet Garrett, if WHEELER is so moved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Nearest thing to an assertion of notability is "professional webmaster". -Splashtalk 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Wilson

Delete non-notable vanity zzuuzz (talk) 17:49, 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 Speedy delete by Finlay McWalter. Aaron 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roguesaints

Speedy tag ( {{db-club}} ) removed without comment. Brought to AfD. I vote delete. Jaxal1 17:54, 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 REDIRECT to Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I'm not going to merge since the only content in this article is summaries of other articles...that exist to contain their summaries! -Splashtalk 00:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars for 9 11 Truth

Essentially an advertisement; WP:NPOV violation; one of a number of pages created by Striver as part of his ongoing campaign to make a POV argument on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. Aaron 18:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Read: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.
Oh, wow, cool, it already existed. I guess you are now going to delete that article as well using the same arguement? --Striver 20:01, 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 speedy deleted as G4/G7/A3. NSLE (T+C) at 10:01 UTC (2006-03-01)

Post-9/11-modernity

Non-notable neologism. Five Google hits (Internet forums). Delete. --Neutralitytalk 18:16, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amusement Wiki

Delete - Had first tagged this for speedy. But author requested removing it. So am putting it here. NN Wiki, with only 100 articles started in January 2006 Aksi great 18:34, 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 Speedy delete A7 by Finlay McWalter. Aaron 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If i may

Delete - NN Band Aksi great 18:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I speedy deleted it - as a group, and with no indication or assertion of notability or significance, it falls under CSD A7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finlay McWalter (talk • contribs) 13:45, February 25, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Punkmorten 19:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptophan synthase scientific name

This is a spoof page Blastwizard 02:12, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen katherine IV

Delete Spoof article. See King of Ireland if in any doubt. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny enough for BJAODN? I don't think so. Hynca-Hooley 00:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, CSD A7. "Professional magician" is not an assertion of notability. Chick Bowen 21:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Jay

No comment. Was hit with PROD tag twice in error. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:18, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Song

No comment. Was hit with PROD tag twice in error. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:17, 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 delete -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precision Compounding Pharmacy & Surgical Supplies

A local pharmacy business, with no indication it's more than a single branch, and no indication it meets the benchmark at WP:CORP. Its creator only made this page and a link to it, so asking them to provide evidence of notability or importance isn't practical, I'm afraid. Wikipedia isn't, and shouldn't become, a business directory. Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:40, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Bad faith article created as POV fork. The single "scientific study" it uses as its main crutch of notability is not peer-reviewed. Reads like an advertisement for the POV inof as an encyclopedic article. Only one internal wikilinks other than to talk pages and previous AfD. (First nomination closed without consensus.) Aaron 20:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would not have renominated this so soon had the first nomination resulted in a "keep" consensus, but with no consensus at all, I couldn't come up with any logical reason not to give it another go, where presumably a somewhat different group of editors would participate in the debate. (For the record, I did not participate in the original nomination, and indeed was unaware it had even taken place until I read the article's talk page a few hours ago.) --Aaron 00:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... you < bang head > didn't look < bang head > at the talk page < bang head > before you AfD'ed it? Georgewilliamherbert 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That is not what I said; you're misreading my statement. All I meant was that I had not been following this article at all until a few hours before I made this nomination; I wanted to make clear to everyone that I had absolutely zero involvement in its first nomination or any discussion leading up to said first nomination. I most certainly read its talk page before AfDing it; how else would I have even known there had been a first nomination? --Aaron 01:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Pov? Could you quote it? I dont see any POV. Only NPOV statmensts like:
  • The group believes that the investigations...
  • According to their website they "...
  • Their conclusion is based on...
  • These experts contend that the official version...
  • They believe that the...
It doesnt get more NPOV than that :) --Striver 20:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sriver's examples aren't weasel words...they attribute specific positions to a specific source, the very opposite of weasel words. Babajobu 16:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This group contains very notable people. I don't know the notability guidelines for groups containing very notable people that have not performed notably as a group, so I assume, based on personal judgment, that the group passes the notability criterion. This article is distinct from the 9/11 Truth Movement. Assert importance. How has this group affected society, or otherwise made an impact on the world? The opening sentence says nothing.  Cdcon  21:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - Look, I know why people want to delete this. The viewpoints these people represent are, in my opinion, fringe, crank, conspiracy theory types of views. And their science is junk in my opinion (and i've done point by point rebuttals of some of their "science papers" before). This article does not exist because it's factually correct history or science. This article exists because it is notable that a large number of people legitimately and truthfully believe the things documented here. That large number of people may be a small fraction of the total population, but it's a real and valid part of our society and history, as much as UFO enthusiasts or Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy enthusiasts, etc. There's nothing wrong with adding more NPOV regarding the verifyable and referenceable accuracy of claims made on the page, but deleting it because we disagree with them is wrong. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 21:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplicates material already on researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, and other pages. Tom Harrison Talk 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get this, who come we have a million pokemon, magic the gathering and lego article, but we cant have more than seven-eight 9/11 sceptic articles? --Striver 22:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The community of Wikipedians have many virtues, among which consistent application of notability guidelines is glaringly absent. The de facto precedent set by the fanboy backwater of the community need not impel us to proliferate articles on this topic. The point is that this group — whose only notable publication so far is a press release calling for more investigation — has given us nothing verifiable to say that can't be said in the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 article. --Dystopos 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prof. Jones, who is clearly notable as having authored the detailed and peer-reviewed study, founded the group. He has other people agreeing with him, who are at least semi-notable, as group members.
We could combine all the 9/11 conspiracy articles into one if we wanted to, but I don't see why. There are variations and particular points of some of these groups, and separate articles seem appropriate; one article adequately and accurately reporting on the diversity of beliefs seems difficult. Unless your argument is that we should combine them all, then this article is IMHO sufficiently notable that it should remain separate. Georgewilliamherbert 23:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, they have made mutliple press releases and statements, but i guess that is hard to know witout fully reading the article, isnt it?--Striver 23:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In order to make a point, it appears that someone has added every single work the group has ever published to the page. Please see WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a battleground, soapbox, or collection of external links. Isopropyl 23:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT more than the others, I think. However, Striver's point is that the group is active in the real world and getting press coverage in the real world. Georgewilliamherbert 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken (excuse the pun!). However, evidence of credibility is probably better added to this discussion, or the article's talk page. 00:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The website lists three peer-reviewed papers, of which none are authored by the group, but by persons who , with one exception, already have articles on Wikipedia detailing the variations and particular points of their research. For what it's worth, none of these have actually been published and only Fetzer's is scheduled to appear in a reviewed journal. Perhaps an article on Fetzer would be more productive than further accusations here? --Dystopos 23:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your count is based on a common but inaccurate reading of Google results. When Google snips all results above a certain number, it does not mean that the rest are duplicates. Note also that Microsoft gets only 500 or so "unique" hits by this reading. There is no search term anywhere that would not get hits in the three-digits this way. I see this cited a lot, and I know you're doing it in good faith, but it's just not correct. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean 51,900 when you said 181 [32].

As of 2006-02-26, a "news.google.com" search gave 29 hits on the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" searchstring [33] --Striver 00:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does this group have one identifiable perspective that differs from "question the official account of 9/11"? If so, I may be coming around. The article might be useful as a short description of how these scholars are collected under one banner, and a description of that would be useful as a link from the individual biographies as well as from the generic article. In any case, detailed recountings of their research seem to be more germane to the biographical articles since, as I noted before, they don't seem to have done much as a group besides collect the member's disparate work onto one site. --Dystopos 01:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highly NPOV, almost seems like original research as well since it hasen't been published in a peer reviewed journal. If you can provide one study that was published in a PEER REVIEWED journal my vote will change to Keep. As well since when is a prof from a physics/astronomy dept a authority on civil engineering? Mike (T C) 02:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the group believes is highly POV; that they exist, and reporting what they believe, is not a POV statement. If it were, we'd have to nuke the articles on Democratic party, Republican Party, etc. I do not believe these people are factually correct, however, they believe that, they're making the most coherently argued case for their beliefs of any of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and that's notable. Accurately recording their existence and beliefs is important, even if they're wrong (and, yes, I do think they're wrong, personally). Georgewilliamherbert 09:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Striver, There are actually not a million Lego articles here. Not even a hundred I don't think. Perhaps you're thinking of Brickwiki? How many different 9/11 skeptic articles do we need? Is every org that has some skeptics in it notable? This one hasn't necessarily estabilished notability yet has it? But the renom seems a little too close in. When thinking about a nom it may be a good idea to check the talk page to see if there's been one before. When this is nomed after a reasonable period, I'd probably vote delete unless more substantive notability was offered. If this does stick around it needs to be deweaseled and it needs to have explicit cites added. ++Lar: t/c 02:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be the wrong place, but could you people also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Citizens' Commission on 9-11? --Striver 02:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is a list of nn?:
  • Keep I agree with Kevin Baas (which criteria for being "encyclopedic" does this article not meet), and I am suprised that it has come up again for deletion. I also agree that the point of view of the group is POV. If we should delete all articles mentioning POV views, there would not be much left. 9/11 truth is a group of specialist with a controversal view of 9/11 who have managed to make it into the main medias, even though the group has not been around for a long time. EyesAllMine 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitly not a pov Fork! Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 is a list of people, this is a article about a group that is notable iin themselve, having multiple University teachers, former government officials and having made a notable news impact. --Striver 04:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If we censor the wikipedia too much, we will have to move on to a more open system than this one.
  • Comment: I don't understand this line of reasoning. If these same people got together and formed a Thursday-night bowling league, would the bowling league merit a Wikipedia entry? --Aaron 22:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, because such a bowling venture is unlikely to draw much attention, and these guys aren't noted for bowling in the first place. The fact of the matter is that a former Bush administration advisor (Morgan Reynolds), former director of the U.S. Advanced Space Programs Development (Robert M. Bowman), a former director of the German Sectret Service (Andreas Von Buelow), et al. have contested the US government's official account of 9/11 and this is notable. Why is this more notable than if a bunch of garbage collectors were in such an association? Well, because many of these guys are notable for other endeavors. Some (although certainly not all) are experts in government policy and/or procedure. Dick Clark 23:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No. But they're the most credible list of people leading the 9/11 conspiracy movement. The 9/11 conspiracy movement is notable (see Zogby Poll results in this newsclip if 49% of New Yorkers believe there was some sort of coverup. The leader is a physics professor (college professor is one of the defined notability examples) who's writing technical articles on the subject. Because of this activity, it's notable. The activity may be crank activity or pseudoscience, but 49% of New Yorkers is more than enough to push the topic into notability, and this is the most notable collection of people under the topic. Georgewilliamherbert 23:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unreasonable to expect a notable rabbit to be peer-reviewed. It is not unreasonable to expect a notable group of scholars to be peer-reviewed. --Mmx1 16:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that even if the work of this group would not be notable from a scholarly point of view (I'm agnostic on that), it can still be notable. Peer-review is not the only possible standard for notability. David Sneek 16:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That link says: "Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly." David Sneek 10:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable group. The group hasn't actually done anything yet aside from a conclusion is based on the results of their own scientific and political research. Funny the way these groups have professors of philosophy but never include a civil or structural engineer. Peter Grey 18:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 01:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Gun Politicians

I don't think anyone could dispute that the page as it stands is POV. I don't see that an article with this title could be made properly NPOV. It also has very limited geographic scope (only to one country). If this is intended as a list, then it would have to be a list of politicians by stance on gun ownership, or similar. David | Talk 20:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The title is inherently NPOV, and the article even more so. There are good articles on the gun control/gun ownership issue. This isn't one. Fan1967 20:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NPOV violation. It appears as if the author has a pro-gun control stance and is using WP to grind an axe. Even the title exhibits bias in the debate, so no amount of cleaning up will excise the NPOV violation.  (aeropagitica)  20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. List could never be encyclopedic anyway without adding untold thousands of names. --Aaron 20:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started this page as a way to get the facts into wikipedia.I DISPUTE TKAT THIS PAGE AS IT STANDS IS POV. Since this page deals with the policies and actions of politicians with a certain philosophy ,namely,the most contentious issue in our country today,why not tell it like it is.As long as we stick to the facts and don't call it like we see it,then how can it be a certain point of view?
The politicians who work to subvert the Constitution are not ashamed of their actions,why should I and you,not chronicle them.
If you go to the page on Diane Feinstein and the talk page you will find that it would take about 6 paragraphs to accurately list her furtherance of gun control.tHAT WOULD PRODUCE A WILDLY LOPSIDED ARTICLE that would look POV,but this page is about the efforts of the Anti-Gun Politicians to remove guns from the hands of civilians.Wheather you think the result of that course of action would result in a safer country or a bloodbath of disarmed citizens,is your point of view.I have not inserted any point of view,or conversely,in the over view,I have presented both sides.(Safety vs.power)
Finally,I AM offended.You can help edit this page and help keep it from becoming POV,but if you delete this page YOU guys are going to look to a bunch of people like some gun-control epithets.Try sticking to the facts.
Matter of fact,I an really offended.If I type the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,do have to include the fact that Islam doesn't agree with that fact,to meet the standard of NPOV/POV?
TALK TO ME BEFORE YOU DELETE MY WORK.PLEASE.Saltforkgunman 21:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your remarks about 'this country' are quite mysterious. There's nothing in the constitution of this country about it. But, yes, a page can be NPOV merely by listing facts. The reasons for this page being POV are that it covers only one side of the debate, and refers to them in terms which may not be entirely acceptable (would everyone on the list accept the title of "Anti-Gun politician"?). And no, you can't just put that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. You can say he is accepted as the Son of God by the Christian religion, and that's OK. David | Talk 21:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irredeemably POV per nom. The people on the list do not fit the definition given: "An anti-gun politician is a politician that believes that civilians do not need and should not own,carry,or use guns." They might believe in restricting guns to a much greater extent than many people would like, but not to the extent of the definition or the title of the page. The summary of the differences of opinion about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is POV. Most of the assertions lack citations, and the one that is present looks quite POV so reliability is a possible issue. Also keep in mind WP:OWN. AFAIK you're quite welcome to assert your belief JCitSoG on talk pages. Schizombie 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it appears,as you say, that I have a pro gun control stance,then I must be masking my pro freedom stance quite well and staying NPOV.

List is encyclopedic.There would be more names added to the list.This is just a start.

I don't see anything 'mysterious about my comments .And the words were:our country,not:this country.Yes,there is something in the (Constitution is spelled with a capital C,when referring to the U.S.Constitution) about it.It is called the Second Amendment.The page isn't a debate,it is about politicians with a certain agenda.Who cares what title they would accept?They earn the title when they try to subvert the Constitution and they violate their oath of office.

Granted gun control beliefs come in varying degrees of extremism,just as I have seen in progun stances.I disagree that the summary of the summary of differences are POV.The assertions are all true and the citations are in the internet to be found,as the page expands.haha.I deleted the one citation i posted,the only one I could find that showed the picture of Diane with the AK.

Hi Jersey.I was not being uncivil to anyone,on the Ted talk page,I was expressing my opinion that Ted is a piece of crap.I think Adolph Hitler was piece of crap,too.Idon't have to be seen as a NPOV contributor,that rule is restricted to my article.You should not judge this page by MY point of view expressed on talk.I'm a nice guy,and darn it,people like me.

I don't know.Our country is one of a handful of countrys where the people still have guns.It isn't hard to 'get it'that this about the U.S.

As soon as someone changes his stand,he can be deleted from the list.It's called editing.You're really stretching for that one.

Anti-gun is,once again,a fact,Would 'gun safety advocate' be more appealing?

Once more time.If a page contains a statement that Senator Feinstein is a socialist sow that seeks to subvert the Bill Of Rights,Violates her oath of office,and wipes her butt on the U.S. Constitution,then I have made a POV statement.I have been as NPOV as the facts can allow.

This is all sort of sad.I was going to make a contribution to wiki when I got my tax return.Saltforkgunman 19:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I understand many people on opposing sides of the issue have strong beliefs about it. But again, while the people on your list may believe in gun control or restricting gun rights (or whatever is the most neutral way of putting it), they don't fit your definition: "An anti-gun politician is a politician that believes that civilians do not need and should not own,carry,or use guns." And picking on someone for not capitalizing a letter is like picking on someone for failing to place an end quote, using sentence fragments, or not putting spaces after punctuation. In an article it would matter, but on a talk page, not so much. Schizombie 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs work, possible rename. It's notable that some politicians are strongly pro-gun-control, and also that some are strongly anit-gun-control. The existing article is not sufficiently encyclopedic and neutral. I would prefer that it be rewritten from scratch with more NPOV and possibly rename to Politicians favoring Gun Control to enhance neutrality. Georgewilliamherbert 21:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Don't see how any change to this could make it NPOV. The list is based on the premise that all politicians who in any way differ from the poster's views on guns should be grouped together. We have (according to the article as written) a politician who believes private citizens should not have guns at all, and one who says there should be some qualifications required for concealed carry. In this poster's POV, it seems, these are the same. Unsuitable for WP. Fan1967 03:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please separate the author/editor's POV and the article. If the editor who created it can't find his way to neutral POV then someone else can do the edits, but there's a difference between "the article can't be NPOV" and "this editor can't be NPOV". The breadth of the brush used is a POV issue, yes, but is repairable (along with the rest). It may be easier to nuke from orbit and rebuild elsewhere, but that may not be the best way forwards. Georgewilliamherbert 03:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think "nuke from orbit and rebuild elsewhere" would exactly be the best way forward. If you think there's a NPOV article to be done on this subject (and I'm not convinced there is), I'd say pitch this one and start from scratch. Fan1967 04:06, 27 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 USERFY AND DELETE. Harro5 23:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brenden Wood

This article was written by Brendenwood, which makes it look autobiographical or vanity. Understandably, that in and of itself does not automatically qualify for deletion. However, Mr. Wood just doesn't seem to meet the qualificaitons set forth in WP:BIO. His accomplishments really aren't more than any other radio personality. James084 20:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Improve Notability or Delete. He is a locally famous music industry executive. Does he have any claim to global importance? Government-official interviews, high-profile media coverage, etc.? I can't see anything here that anyone not from Australia could care about.  Cdcon  21:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has thousands of articles on things and people that non-Americans would not care about. "Nationally notable" should not be a reason to delete, particularly as "nationally" never seems to apply to the USA. End systemic bias now! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Seems like a possible merge is in order, but that's not a particularly clear position in this debate. -Splashtalk 00:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004

Without the (copyvio) list of people, it's no use as an aticle. Originally deleted after being listed on 2006-02-04. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-25t20:26z

  • Comment: Only the list was deleted. Just clearing up any lingering, possibly prejudicial, confusion: this form of the article has not been deleted before. Hu 18:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's a useful stub, and I think it could be fleshed out into a better article. Even as a stub, the article says that it was published on April 20, that 2004 was their first annual such list, and the article describes how the names were arranged. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per numerous precedents. A sentence in Time magazine covers the subject adequately. Just zis Guy you know? 23:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and associated pages. As with other magazine lists recently, this is copyrighted to the respective publishers and authors of the original article. It is also subjective, POV and unencyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read it? The list isn't included, and it's not a copyright violation. It also isn't a POV problem to describe TIME Magazine's POV.
  • Delete this and the 2005 sibling too. Pavel Vozenilek 01:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no copyvio here, as there is no list! While the article is currently a stub and cannot ever be as thorough as it should be sans copyright law, I'm willing to trust that it could turn into something rather useful. Quadell is quite correct that, even as it stands right now, it accurately describes what the list is and how the names are arranged. This is of at least some use. - Jersyko·talk 16:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a useful referrent point for other articles that might be about people on the list. Stubs can grow, that being a prime Wikipedia mechanism. The article is certainly about a more notable topic than 90 percent of the lists that proliferate around here. If you feel the article is PoV, then don't delete it, edit it to make it neutral PoV, that is the Wikipedia way. Hu 18:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (see also endorsement of user Volatile's vote)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I believe the article is still useful (provides something to link to when mentioned in articles about those recognized by the list). Provided that the stub gets cleaned up a bit, the stub should remain. I'm not familiar with this list, but if Time publishes it on a yearly basis, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have a general article "TIME Magazine's 100 Most Influential People" and have all descendent lists (...of 2003, ...of 2004, ...of 2005,etc.) redirect there? Volatile 20:32, 26 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 (blatant copyright infringement (criteria A8) of http://myth.bungie.org/legends/encyclopedia/who.html) --Allen3 talk 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summoner, The

Fancruft of some video game. Information contained therein is limited to a single sentence about the subject, followed by useless quotes from the game.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 User:Allen3 as copyvio. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tain, The

This page appears to be pure fancruft of an unknown video game, rife with quotes and generally non-encyclopedic information.


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

Binty

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as speedy deletion, but "neologism" is not a speedy deletion criterion. However, it should still be deleted. Chick Bowen 21:00, 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 DELETE. I'm not at all sure the redirect is sensible, and it's hard to judge without any explication at all. Still, it can always be made by someone if they feel like it. -Splashtalk 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbe-maise

This article is a dictdef that has been transwikid to Wiktionary (Transwiki:bubbe-maise)James084 21:00, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamesgamesgames.co.uk

Advert for non-notable website. Tagged for proposed deletion but detagged by an anon editor. Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:WEB. Delete. JeremyA 21:01, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_25&oldid=41214280"