Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Captain Disdain (talk | contribs) at 12:03, 9 May 2006 (Added "Dutch coming to the New World".). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< May 8 >

Purge server cache

May 9

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

The result of the debate was Snow / Speedy / Its gone. Tawker 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of nymphets and faunlets

inappropriate content for an encyclopedia. Load of POV listcruft. Actually, in the same vein as List of sex symbols. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? The list of sex symbols isn't up for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)

The "something similar to this article isn't up for deletion so this article shouldn't be deleted" argument has got to be the worst keep argument. Ever. -- Scientizzle 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it is the subject matter of the article more than anything else that makes it put up for deletion, as other related articles are. You can't pin-point one article and not another just because you don't agree with its subject matter. Most of the lists on Wikipedia are POV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)

It seems most people's problem with the list is the fact that it says 'nymphet and faunlet'... if it was strictly the POV they were worried about, they'd've also tagged the list of sex symbols and other 'POV' lists... but go ahead, delete it.

A lot of the people on this list are not children, either. Many of them also appear on the list for sex symbols66.181.234.82 01:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please deleteUser_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 patent nonsense. --InShaneee 02:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Mortal Kombat Caracters

No proper info. Badly written. Largely incoherent— Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (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 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Test Dummy

The website doesn't even exist yet - that makes it hard to be notable. BigDT 00:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you judge the value of a website on whether you have heard of it or not. There are literally millions of websites. Political Test Dummy plays in integral part in the development of youth opinion within the media in Australia. May I suggest you are out of touch. Judge on the merits of its aim, not the current numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.41.236 (talk • contribs)

The Website does exist, www.politicaltestdummy.com - Try reading the note that says they are currently 're-developing', not 'developing', but 're-developing. Or alternatively, attempt to Google the words 'Political Test Dummy'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.34.87 (talk • contribs)

Comment But right now there's nothing - perhaps wait until it's "redeveloped" before writing an article? Anyhow, it only gets 30 Google hits [3], that's nothing. In fact, 13 are from the website itself, 9 from Wikipedia, and the rest are just someone spamming in various webforums! Mdwh 14:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSF Lifecycle

This page appears to be part of someone's failed multilevel marketing campaign from 2005 --Msebast 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robitic Nightmare

Barely coherent jumble, notability not demonstrated - Richardcavell 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 patent nonsense. --InShaneee 02:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity worship

Originally, I listed it as a speedy as db-nonsense. The contributor removed my speedy tag. So I'm putting it here. BigDT 01:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barobax

nn slang term, used in Persian, which the article admits is mainly used by an underground band in Iran, and would appear to be very recent. This I think would not be particularly notable, as Iran is a conservative theocracy and an underground rock band would probably only be known to a few people who go against the conservative orthodoxy, which most likely strongly disapporves of such music. Also, the band has a website with no alexa rank, so I am dubioiuis of their influence on pop culture.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 advertising. --InShaneee 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Association of Religion Data Archives

Contains nothing but a link to a website, gives no reason to believe it is notable. BigDT 01:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Tomic

An under-13 tennis player. He may become good one day, but there are many child wonders who never convert to the top echelons. It doesn't seem that he is notable on accounts of publicity, for the moment.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Raichu 15:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans at Dartmouth College

Non-notable student organization at my alma mater. Brian G. Crawford 01:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyer Elementary School

Non-notable School with only 44 students. --Corporal Punishment 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 06:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid cocaine

This has been transwikied to Wikibooks acccording to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid Cocaine. I suspect this is a duplicate article that was overlooked. Brian G. Crawford 02:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7, userfied article. Royboycrashfan 18:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh C Dave

This is a vanity article. It was created by User:Cansur and is an autobiography. On top of this, the notability is not asserted Tony Bruguier 02:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; in addition to the copyvio as listed, the mod has been shut down as copyvio.  RasputinAXP  c 15:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's Special Forces

Mod with no assertion of notability. Delete as advertising and vanity. --InShaneee 02:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article started out about a TV show, and has evolved into this. I don't see either incarnation as being notable enough to be here. Kevin 02:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you may not see it as being 'notable enough,' the game during the last release was #3 on the Steam list of Half-Life engine games, second only to CounterStrike and Natural Selection, above Sven:Co-Op, The Specialists and HL2:Deathmatch, all of which have Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sailoralea (talk • contribs)

  • Keep, clean-up, improve. 50,000 hits on google.Dlohcierekim 04:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a mod it belongs in an article on Half-Life engine games. As advertising, it is pretty sad. It doesn't even have a link to their site. I don't think it is vanity or advertising. Even so, it belongs merged into a more general article. Ted 15:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it can be cleaned up and improved significantly, then keep. Otherwise, delete. It seems very crufty to me as it stands now (but i could be biased as I hate dragonball). Of the Half-life mods that have articles linked, most of what I sampled were much more detailed than this, and several were quite in-depth, so there is precedent for an article such as this. -- stubblyhead | T/c 17:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio -- Most of the article was a direct copy from their website, and I've since removed it. The remainder is insufficient for an article. Night Gyr 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clean up, improve, and expand. Beno1000 23:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it has been greatly improved. This is a very popular mod and therefore should be allowed to stay. I dont see this as advertising or vanity. Its simply informing on the subject just like any other article. This now goes as in depth as any of the other Half-life mods that ive read, and therefore is just as notable -- Metal_Mario333
Depth of the article is not a criteria for deletion or inclusion. I could write ten pages about my neighbor's dog and it still wouldn't be worth including. Also, as it is, the information is mostly inappropriate game guide data like character stats and attacks. Night Gyr 07:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at most of the other half-life mods. All they talk about is weapons, types of gameplay etc. All "inappropriate game guide data." Besides, im not done with this article. I have a lot more to add.Metal_Mario333


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  RasputinAXP  c 15:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXPLOit

I googled and can't find any references to it. That's hardly conclusive - there are a ton of content management systems out there and plenty of them have exploits - so there is plenty of noise in the google results. The article doesn't tell the name of the manufacturer or link to their website so I'm inclined to think it could be either a hoax or a product that no longer exists. Still, even if it does exist, it doesn't appear notable. BigDT 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 02:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Stelmach

This should be a "speedy delete", but I don't know how to do that. Can anybody point me to it? Tony Bruguier 02:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins can do that, but you can put {{db|reason}} on a page so that they will see it. --InShaneee 02:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 patent nonsense. --InShaneee 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aedrah

Speedy delete Tony 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not the place to bring these. --InShaneee 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Scott

Ex-mayor of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Fails WP:BIO ccwaters 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated this article because that's all he is: a former mayor of a mid-sized city. There's nothing notable about him otherwise (attracting an unaffiliated low minor baseball team?). This nom isn't about the worthiness of the City of Lancaster or the verifiability(?) of his former position. He's just a guy who was a mayor once. I don't him being anywhere close to WP:BIO. ccwaters 18:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really think it's possible to be the mayor of a mid-sized city for six years and not do anything? Come on. The article itself spells out several accomplishments, and it's easy to find more. He was a WWII pilot who survived for 4 months behind enemy lines after being shot down over Germany, and was finally captured and held in a POW camp before escaping in 1945. He also wasn't elected out as mayor: he resigned so he could serve as Pennsylvania’s adjutant general. He easily passes WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really think it's possible to be the mayor of a mid-sized city for six years and not do anything: Yes I do. Quick what's the mayor of Toledo done in his term? Who knows and who cares outside of Toledo. My point is being a mayor shouldn't be an automatic notability qualification. With that said: the sum of all the tidbits you unearthed makes a rather interesting fellow. Too bad the article in its current state doesn't reflect that. I change my vote to needs work. ccwaters 20:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the mayor of a city of 650,000 people just sits around in a sash that says "MAYOR" on it and gives oversized novelty souvenir keys to visiting superheroes, you're wrong. The current mayor of Toledo has an article which lists quite a few accomplishments and controversies, including overseeing Toledo's larlgest building boom in history. He's so popular with voters that, since by law he can't serve 3 consecutive terms, he sat out for a term and got re-elected for a third term afterwards. Just think: as mayor of a city of 650,000 people, how many people know his name? How many times has he been mentioned in the newspaper? How many times has he been on the front page? How big a section will he get in local history books? How many people work for the city, and thus directly or indirectly work for him? How many billions of dollars of public funds does he manage? How many streets, bridges, and buildings are named after him? How many people, every day of their lives, are effected one way or another by the decisions he makes in office? And after all that, think again whether he's worth a kilobyte or two of article space on Wikipedia. The answer, I would think, should be obvious. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO endorses "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage". I haven't checked, but I would imagine a mayor would have significant press coverage at least during his term in office. He's also a member of the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs’ Hall of Fame. He was also a Major General, which to me, is significant in and of itself. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing this particular article anymore. I've been convinced. There's more to him than this article states. As far as "major local political figures": I guess I don't interpret that the same as you. To me that means a political figure of a major municipality OR a local politician that through some news event (positive or negative) has transcended their local sphere of influence. I don't feel the need to write up articles about Juanita Crabb or other former mayors of my hometown. Starblind what city are we talking about? Nether Lancaster or Toledo is anywhere near 650k. If you feel like continuing this dicussion, lets please find a different forum. I'm sure the AFD watchers are getting tired of this. Like I said before: I'm not arguing this specific article anymore. ccwaters 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Toledo, Ohio article cites a metro area population of 659,188. I'm glad you've been convinced of Scott's notability. Oh, and one last thing: the "major local political figures" part of WP:BIO doesn't apply here: it's from the section on living persons, while Scott has been dead since January 2005. With that said, I'll let this rest, but if anyone wants to discuss further my talk page is always open. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike wrathell

This person is not notable enough as per Google Tony Bruguier 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've got the AfD thing happening now. Nice one. Kevin 02:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shwarp

Delete. Prod was "Hoax. Googling (shwarp and golf) produces 29 n/a hits." Deprod by anon was "Regardless of Google results, this is not a hoax. It is a new word that is heard more and more frequently." Article was rewritten a bit by the anon, but the point remains the same. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAN(Remote Viewing)

Self-promotion. The Aaron Donahue article has already been deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 07:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per curium

Completing the AfD by anon user. Kevin 03:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I'm the original author. Sorry, don't flame me for being new at adding stuff. That was my first day of putting stuff up. Ok, and curiam is speeld the right way. Not curium. Sorry. Sorry that I didn't check the dictionary. I thought it was good, because no one else put it up. shadowj212


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

Holoworld Fleet

Non-notable play-by-email game, sounds like an ad. TorriTorri 03:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Star Trek: Origins

Delete - Non-notable as-yet unproduced fan film. Google search brings up only 54 returns, only 34 unique, and only half of those actually reference this film. MikeWazowski 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If something actually comes of it and it becomes notable it can be recreated, but it's nn now. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - please note as an FYI for anyone who may see this and not realize what it is about - this is NOT Star Trek XI - the next movie in the Star Trek series that is going to be about Kirk's crew in their academy years. Rather, this is an unrelated fan-produced film.
Comment For accuracy STXI is not confirmed to be about Kirks Academy years. In fact Abrams said that part was false as he hadn't come up with a premise yet. EnsRedShirt 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I am one of the show's writers, and it was suggested we make a wiki page. We aren't crystal balling here, we have spent the last 3 months devoting our time for this..it's gonna happen. Dekethewriter 11:44 AM, 9 May, 2006 (EDT)
We aren't crystal balling here Has it been made? No? Then you're "crystal balling". --Calton | Talk 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No shows qre notqble before they qre produced.


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

Flouron Emission Rays

Believed to be a hoax. See article talk page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Christopher Thomas 17:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - Just nuke this hoax. Georgewilliamherbert 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no press releases from CERN or anything to verify the contents of the article, nor is the article even self consistent. If the wavelength of these rays varies from 10^-18 cm to 10^-13 cm, then the frequency range should be 3x10^23 Hz to 3x10^28 Hz. Also, using the given wavelength range, the energy would only go up to 10^14 eV, not 10^18. KristinLee 04:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 07:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Joe 17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty)

Not notable 43 google hits for Strashelye most of them from wikipedia. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses an important figure in the development of the Chassidic world. All of the material is documented and footnoted. There is no reason to delete this article. --Meshulam 06:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There is no problem with covering Hasidic dynasties in Wikipedia, see List of Hasidic dynasties, but this article is lacking in key information -- such as where the town they originated is located, when the dynasty was founded, and when it ceased (the article says that the dynasty did not last into the second generation, yet the first paragraph implies that the adherents still continue today). If this is a defunct group, that would explain why it has a minimal Google presence, but we need more clarification. --Metropolitan90 07:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did what I can to clean up some of the things that you mentioned. I'll look for some more definite years (when R' Aharon lived, etc.).--Meshulam 12:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I am withdrawing my nomination. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean we can take down the delete business at the top of the page?--Meshulam 15:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Joe 03:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kapust

Not notable, While the name Kapust is popular, the Kapust which this article is talking about which is Kapust Chassidic dynasty is not notable as any google search will show. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, the nominator should not have placed this article for deletion while in the midst of an edit war with the author of this article. this seems like retaliation.)

Does that mean we can take down the delete box?--Meshulam 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  RasputinAXP  c 15:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tekoki

This "article" is a simple definition, and of a Japanese term at that, which links from a list of Japanese sex terms that is itself probably a good candidate for deletion. There's already an article at handjob, and this article is beyond POV. Delete, delete, delete. Exploding Boy 04:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on redirection. First, if we're to redirect tekoki we should redirect it to handjob (which is what it means), not to masturbation (which isn't the same thing). Second, I'm not convinced it needs redirecting at all. After all, this is the English Wikipedia. Why would anyone do a search on the Japanese word for "handjob"? By that rationale, we should include a redirect for words in every language. It's unnecessary, especially since there are already interlanguage links on the articles. Exploding Boy 22:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to provide a reasoning behind my decision, so here goes: 1. If I count !votes I get roughly 21 dels, 13 keeps, that's a 60% majority for deleting, but really in no man's land between no consensus (ca. 50%) and rough consensus (ca. 67%). 2. The policy on WP:NOT is very much in flux over whether glossaries are exemptions to the Not a dictionary provision. Unless there is consensus to strike the exemption I prefer to stick with the status quo ante (still reflected in Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)), which is that glossaries are acceptable. 3. Most importantly, the content of the article changed significantly in the last days of the debate [6] thanks mostly to edits by User:JJay, and this change was reflected in a number of delete→keep changes and late keep !votes, so the early "delete not sourced" !votes are no longer on solid factual ground. Taking these three factors into account I did not see that consensus for deletion was established. This is a no consensus closure though so it can be renominated anytime. I recommend waiting three to four weeks for the policy debate to be settled and to see if the article improves, and consider renomination then. But of course I might be wrong, and that's what we have WP:DRV for. ~ trialsanderrors 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese sex terms

List of Japanese sex terms (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This list contains Japanese terms for sex, sex organs, sex positions, and so on. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We should not be hosting random lists of foreign words. Although we do have some lists like this, unlike those there's no particular reason to maintain a list of sex terms in various languages, since sex-related articles on English Wikipedia are written in English, and those that are specifically on Japanese sex topics define all the terms they use. Exploding Boy 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Erm. Delete, obviously.[reply]

  • Delete. This article is inherently unverifiable. We have no way of knowing if these definitions are accurate. If anywhere, it belongs on the Japanese Wikipedia. Even then it is not encyclopedic. These are not unique concepts, such as might find in a glossary, they're just definitions of crude words in a foreign language. -Will Beback 08:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why you call this inherently unverifiable. why would this be any less verifiable than american sex terms? Derex 10:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fail to see any merit in this ever-growing list of foreign language sex-slang. It fails what Wiki is not, so I'm suprised it's managed to stay up for so long. At best this article is an unverifiable list of foreign language slang with minimal use as any kind of reference point, and at worse it's just acting as a bulletin board for people to post titillating rude words from Japan. ShizuokaSensei 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per ShizuokaSensei, its not what Wikipedia is. James086 Talk | Contribs 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. No comprehensible rational for deletion advanced (as far as I can see, all arguments are either a)factually wrong or b)essentially "I don't like it, for no particular reason". WilyD 15:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be civil. If you would like to explain precisely why the claim that Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies is "factually wrong", someone might be willing to listen to you. Merely asserting that those who oppose you are making "incomprehensible", "irrational", "factually wrong", and unsupported claims is inappropriate. — Haeleth Talk 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh - this is clearly not a dictionary entry. Thus wikipedia is not a dictionary doesn't apply. There's zero plausible basis for even trying to assert it's a dictionary entry. Clearly it's a stub or start class list - but being a stub is hardly a criterion for deletion. It's hard to aruge that it's not a dictionary entry because there's no argument to be made - a cursory visual inspection reveals it not to be. WilyD 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - How on God's green earth can you claim this is encyclopedic??! It does NOT meet WP: NOT. It is NOT VERIFIABLE in that there are no SOURCES. Bishōjo has no sources. Futanari is not sourced. Image club is just totally made up. I would strongly suggest that the people voting keep THINK about what they are voting to keep. There are some terms in the list that are legit, but the majority of list is an unsourced list of mostly unsourced terms that , if they belong ANYWHERE, belong on the Japanese Wikipedia. Please also look up in the dictionary the definition of encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 15:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said it's encyclopaedic because it is. I said it's verifiable because it is. This seems like a fairly straightforward proposition - I'm not sure how you missed it. WilyD 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really, folks, you gotta love inclusionists. Alright , let's examine:
  1. If you are using the definition of encyclopedic as "an alphabetical organization of fields of knowledge" then you are being pedantic. It is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, no matter how much it tries to fit a dictionary definition of encyclopedic. It is not a collection of verifiable facts. If you are saying that it is, then I respectfully think you are wrong and agree to disagree.
  2. If you are suggesting that articles, without sources, that are little more than stubs, that have existed in the same state for months, are verifiable, do you mean theoretically? Because, theoretically, anything is verifiable to some people. But it is not verifiable in terms of WP:V for a very large majority of terms on that list. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, apart from being demonstratably not an inclusionist (I've compared my AfD votes and it's pretty clear I'm a "centrist" on the issue - my keep arguments for articles that are deleted are a percentage of my keep arguments that equal to the percentage of my delete arguments where the article is kept) I'll show what the problem is when you vote to delete an article without first reading it.
If an article is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, but not for "the spirit of an encyclopaedia" then voting to delete it clearly fails WP:NPOV. Rather than make value judgements about whether I particularly like a topic or not, I apply Wikipedia, she ain't paper and ask merely "Is it encyclopaedic?" - here even you admit the answer is yes, so I'll move on.
I'll ask is it sourced? For this article, the answer is yes - clearly it's important to read the article to determine whether or not it's sourced. Merely guessing can result in the wrong answer. Being sourced (such as this article is) brings the advantage of a vaguely NPOV test of notability - someone else has found it notable enough to document - this is (I believe) a much more NPOV test than Do I personally find this article interesting? WilyD 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that people aren't providing reasons for their "keep" votes. It's not enough to say it's encyclopaedic, particularly when so many have argued that it's inherently unencyclopaedic. While items on the list may be verifiable, that still doesn't provide a convincing rationale for keeping the list itself, as mentioned in the original post. Exploding Boy 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The justification for keeping the list is that it explains a variety of encylopedic topics grouped in an obvious way. Kappa 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't. It's just a list of non-English terms. All the Japanese sex-related articles should already appear in List of sexology topics, and every article that uses Japanese terminology should already be explaining those terms within the article. Exploding Boy 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. List of sexology topics doesn't explain anything, are you suggesting we add the explanations there? Kappa 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Amen to that. ShizuokaSensei 10:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a place for content concerns. That's why there's an edit button. WilyD 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but let it be noted that a major cleanup on this list was only done after the list was AFDd. Exploding Boy 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lesson here is, never attempt to clean up an article after it goes on AFD. Kappa 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; encyclopedia =/= dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't understand how anyone can argue this is encyclopædic. It is a list of foreign words with definitions. Additionally, Haeleth is absolutely right about it being a very Western-otaku-biased "article" with very little Japanese language comprehension: even as a dictionary article it is not very good. The onus of explaining the individual terms should be on the individual articles, as linked-to from the Japanese Sex Terms category. Finally, do the 'keepers' not see the redundancy, all other arguments aside, of a "list of japanese sex terms" article within the overall category "Japanese sex terms"? Erk, 1345, 10 November 2006 (GMT-8).
  • Delete. This iscnot what wikipedia is for.
  • Weak Keep Presuming the terms can be verified. Given that for some of the terms we have extensive articles on them it isn't unreasonable to have a list of all the highly notable Japanese sexual terms. The only issue is that it might make more sense as a subcategory of sexual slang rather than as a list. JoshuaZ 04:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable list. JASpencer 09:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:V, if you can't source it, delete it. Sources cited, so change to a keep. Seraphimblade 01:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wiktionary is a dictionary. -- Stbalbach 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not sure how this list is any more or less unencyclopaedic than any other list on wikipedia. How is this any different from the List of gay slang words and phrases, the List of films that most frequently use the word fuck, etc...The terms are all verifiable, there is ample precident for this kind of lists, or lists in general. If people think this list should be deleted, then the opinion should hold that 100% of lists should be deleated, as they are all equally unencyclopaedic.MightyAtom 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of gay slang words and phrases is at least defensible on the grounds that the terms are in English. As for the other article.... it's been AFDd at least 5 times. Exploding Boy 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I checked as to why that list survived. "Like other 'lists of trivia', they are interesting and not detrimental to the encyclopedia." Seems like that could apply here as well. It is all verifiable info. Its interesting. Seriously, what is the point of lists at all, anyways? None of them are "unencyclopaedic." Delete this one, delete them 100%. MightyAtom 00:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Has it occured to you that those articles may be just as deserving as deletion as this one? After all Wikipedia is not subject to precident.(actually the list of films with the word fuck is very well sourced, but is not a dictionary list) HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agree with HighInBC's comment. I can't find a thing to verify most of these terms, but if they're easily verifiable, cite sources and I'll happily change votes! The main sticking point here is the lack of verifiability, so at least to my thinking, fix that and the whole issue goes away. Seraphimblade 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The books "Japan's Sex Trade" and "Japanese Street Slang" by Peter Constantine can verify some of these, but dictionary issues?... Pete Fenelon 01:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki to Wiktionary, if they want it. It's not sourced and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The cleaned up version of the page is just as invalid as the full version (which would have been better material for Wiktionary.) The cleaned up version consists of a list of links to other articles in the project. There's no need for that. Inclusion of other articles is not an indicator of notability. --Kunzite 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If this list is going to survive, what is listed on it needs to be very closely monitored. The fact so little of this article's definitions are unique to Japan is a big part of the problem with it. Very little of what was listed is unique to Japan - it simply defines a Japanese word for something which goes on all over the world. This is a deeper problem with Wiki wearby numerous topics of little or no note are documented in great depth, but let's not get into that here. So, what is of note out of the article? Just up to H, I'd argue that at least half of what is currently there is not in anyway unique to Japan and merely serves as a DicDef.
      • Bukkake: A Japanese invention - worthy of inclusion
      • Chikan: Not unique to Japan - of little note. However, has a long and meandering article (lifting large sections from Rotton.com as a source) suggesting otherwise...
      • Ecchi: Links to the article for the English letter H. A foreign slang word for sex - of little note
      • Enjo kosai: The Japanese term for underage prostitution - at a strech worthy of inclusion
      • Futanari: Japanese for hermaphrodites - of little note
      • Fuzoku: Defined as meaning "sex culture" in Japanese Doesn't have an article. Of little note.
      • Gokkun: A genre of Japanese porn. Worthy of inclusion
      • Hentai: Defined as "pervert." This is a much wider part of sex culture, so worthy of inclusion

Any thoughts?ShizuokaSensei 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 09:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Zoller

Non-notable biography; clean-up tag since 12/05; no real incoming links. -- FRCP11 05:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 12:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Inverse Earth Rapturism

This is an obvious joke/nonsense page. If you google, the only results are Wikipedia and places that get their content from here. It could possibly be deleted as patent nonsense. One random note from the history - it looks like someone else started an AFD, but it got reverted? I guess they just didn't complete the process. Anyway ... how this thing has survived four months is beyond me. BigDT 05:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Talmud Jmmanuel Logia

The page is redundant with Billy Meier and Talmud Jmmanuel. The main editor for this page intended it as a temporary page, used to rewrite one or both of those articles, but he has done nothing since April. I can see no reason to keep this page. Phiwum 05:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as a duplication. The whole thing, by the way, is an obvious hoax ... but it has gotten enough mention in the outside world to be worthy of an article (just one though). BigDT 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold up ... it looks like it was already supposed to have been deleted ... [10] ... if the two articles are substantially the same, then I'll take Speedy Delete BigDT 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are not substantially the same. The text that is on the page currently is different than the previously deleted page. I am also confident that the primary contributor this time is different than the contributor that time. (I was the nominator that time too.) Phiwum 06:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as duplication. —Mets501talk 15:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Slouching

Delete - nn protologism that sadly couldn't fall through the prod process without the prod being removed. Wickethewok 05:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Global Resource Bank Initiative

Undeleted after a DRV dicussion did not produce a majority to endorse. And I am relisting on AFD for further discussion. The article was originally deleted as a recreation of Global Resource Bank (which can be viewed here), in turn deleted as a result of this AFD debate. DRV argued that this new version has some new information. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "GRB shareholders define economics as the science that deals with the production, distribution and conservation of Earth's ecosystem wealth such as air, water, soil and climate." Uh huh. Remind me not to do business with your bank then. BigDT 06:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junk, junk, junk. In case anyone cares, Googling the title phrase produces only 2 unique hits: a blogspot blog and Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a notable bank or initiative would be easy to google-trace, cannot find a WP:RS that independently refers to this - possible hoax Crum375 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sex symbols

The article is inherently POV ("This is a subjective list") and thus inherently unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This list is both.

There was a previous AFD about a month ago that was 10-7 in favor of delete. Of the 7 voting to keep the list, two gave silly reasons. Four said that it needed to be trimmed substantially. It hasn't been and thus, it should be reconsidered for deletion.

See also discussion of a related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_nymphets_and_faunlets BigDT 06:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Raichu 16:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Morrison

Nonnotable biography with no incoming links -- FRCP11 06:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Glasscock

NN bio, no edits in six months; no non-Wiki google hits in top ten -- FRCP11 06:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Raichu 16:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend and The Makers

Undeleted after a DRV discussion, but many called for relisting this. Unsure about notability here so no vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Easily passes WP:MUSIC by virtue of their current national tour dates supporting the UK arm of the Arctic Monkeys' tour, after which they perform more dates in their own right. --Tony Sidaway 06:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pursuant to arguements made in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Reverend and The Makers by Captmonkey, who reasonably demonstrated it meets WP:MUSIC. And thanks to Sjakkalle for the doing the undeletion. --Rob 07:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It all comes down to whether touring as support band is enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. I'm not sure what the precedent is so no vote at the moment, but my personal feeling is that as this band are unsigned (or were when I last checked), they weren't the headliners on the tour, they are not yet sufficiently notable. --kingboyk 10:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony Sidaway and Thivierr. DarthVader 12:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Though I'm not sure that touring as a support act satisfies WP:MUSIC, since it's a fairly notable tour with a large audience, I'd say it does push them over the bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as they have another tour soon and the love will spread further. I know ive searched on here for them before only to be disappointed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.66.122 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep per above. Support bands surely meet the touring requirement of WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only have they played support on a very notable and high profile UK tour, but have braced the pages of magazines such as NME and Sandman, recieve airplay on major slots on Radio 1 and judging by their rate of success so far, will bring many more reasons to keep this page in coming months. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.163.124 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep My argument is well documented on the Deletion Appeal log page. :) Definately meets WP:MUSIC. Captmonkey 14:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in agreement with reasons cited on the deletion appeal, esp. tour support, mentions in NME and airplay on Radio 1 craigand
  • Keep -- whoever deleted the page should have checked for evidence of notability themselves; the band have sufficient media profile in the UK for notability to have been assumed. 212.56.68.42 15:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually whoever wrote the article should have *cited* evidence of notability, in the beginning. I disagreed with the deleting admin, but really the fault here lies primarily with the creation of an (originally) unsourced article. --Rob 18:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  RasputinAXP  c 15:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayreuth Circle

Delete The 'Bayreuth Circle' is sometimes used as a shorthand for Winifred Wagner and her associates, and can be dealt with as such under WW. It was not a formal organisation, had no explicit aims insofar as it existed at all, and did nothing. Thus, not a topic for an article. --Smerus 12:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A false argument. The Vienna Circle is recognised by philosophers and historians of philosophy as a group of pepople who made a contribution to philosophy. The Bayreuth Circle is not recognised by historians (or anyone else) as a group of people who did or achieved anything at all.--Smerus 21:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, this citation is irrelevant and cannot support keeping this article - the NYt article concerns a book about the Wagner family, not the supposed 'Bayreuth circle'--Smerus 21:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 06:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eusebeus. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable phenomenon in German history. Has been the subject of academic study (random samples: Wolfgang Altgeld, "Wagner, der Bayreuther Kreis und die Entwicklung des völkischen Denkens". In: Richard Wagner 1883-1983, ed. U. Müller, Stuttgart 1984, S. 35-64. Winfried Schüler: Der Bayreuther Kreis von seiner Entstehung bis zum Ausgang der Wilhelminischen Ära. Wagnerkult und Kulturreform im Geiste völkischer Weltanschauung (Neue Münstersche Beiträge zur Geschichtsforschung 12), Münster 1971.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Future Perfect. It is indeed a notable German historical phenomenon. ProhibitOnions 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Bayreuth Circle had great cultural impact on the age--Aldux 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fut.Perf.'s good work. Vizjim 14:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the author of Wagner Societies, Wolfgang Wagner and a major contributor to Bayreuth Festival, let me say that I find the above keep votes questionable. The Bayreuther Kreis in the titles above references the enthusiasts who championed Wagner's music; this is well-covered at the origins of the Festival itself, as well as the main Wagner article. We don't need a spurious article claiming some kind of political extremism gathered around the figure of Wagner and blessed with some kind of official title - it is historically inaccurate. Eusebeus 16:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: just because the word 'Kreis' has a capital letter in German doesn't raise the circle of Wagner enthusiasts to any sort of movement. Let me reemphasize: these enthusiasts did not have a 'great cultural impact on the age', nor were they 'a notable German historical phenomenon'. Anyone making such grandiose statements has at least a responsibility to provided some resepectable citation in support - of which we have seen none so far in this debate amongst the 'keeps'.--Smerus 17:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no specific opinion on whether it is in fact true that the circle had any notable effect - but the existence of scholarly literature such as that cited above indicates that such an idea exists out there and that the term has currency. Which for me is enough for inclusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the problem Eusebeus is pointing out. Someone writes a book with 'The Bayreuth Circle' in the title, to describe a social / political / cultural milieu, someone else puts it on WP as a formal body (it even has an organisation-stub tag, would you believe), and then its kept because there's a published title (in a language many of us don't read). Suddenly Winifred Wagner's music evenings have become the precursor to the SA. Utterly nonsensical. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - why not be bold and rewrite the article to give a better idea (as you seem very knowledgeable on the subject) of the origins of the phrase "Beyreuth Circle", the milieu it describes, and the objections to the use of the term? Seems to me as though the objections you are raising are an occasion for rewriting, not deletion. Vizjim 08:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth do you mean, link 'between Wagner and the Nazis'? Wagner died in 1883. Hitler was born in 1889.--Smerus 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I was about to write [13], but that seems to only refer to the video game character. Yech. Anyway, link, connection, that which brings two things together. The Bayreuth Circle were a link between them - people connected with both, in fact people quite actively connecting them, in the sense of interpreting Wagner to support the Nazis, and encouraging the performance and even adulation of Wagner during Nazism. I'm not sure what the objection is. AnonEMouse 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia, where accuracy is subservient to guesswork. Was oben geschrieben wird ist ganz und total Scheiße. Eusebeus 14:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I understand, we deal in neither accuracy, nor guesswork, but verifiability. So far we have 2 German books, a scholarly music article, and Bnai Brith referring to such an organization in the manner that it's described in the article: that's verifiable. The obscenity, however, is uncalled for, please remove it. AnonEMouse 15:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The obscenity may be uncalled for, but it seems fairly accurate to me. And btw since when have Bnei Brith been recognised authorities on musical history? Just to make clear my own POV, I write as an orthodox Jewish music historian who desparately wishes to draw clear lines between music history and the Holocaust industry. This article is a disastrous concession to the latter by exaggerating something utterly trivial to a specious significance that can clutter school essays under the 'authority' of Wikipedia. Not only is it wrong-headed in itself, it damages Wikipedia's reputation--Smerus 15:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for intruding, as I'm certainly by no means an expert on either Wagner's music nor German history, but it seems to me your objections are misplaced. Rather than rail for elimination of this article, wouldn't your time and energy be better spent in the article itself, trying to achieve historical accuracy? It seems fairly obvious that there are compelling reasons that the article should exist, given all the citations given; your job, it would seem to me, would be to put things in proper perspective in the article, like in a "Myths & misconceptions" section. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, are you the same ILike2BeAnonymous who on 7th May 'insisted' on keeping this article and claimed it was 'notable'? Why then don't you rewrite it? I would not wish personally to be associated with this non-topic in any way, and certainly would not to wish to give it undeserved status by writing it up or expanding it - that indeed is why I proposed deleting it. You may not agree with me, but at least I am consistent. :-) --Smerus 21:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would, if I were qualified to do so. I'm not, which puts me at the mercy of people like you. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the thing. If nobody is prepared to improve it soon, does it meantime lend undue credibility to a controversial idea? I am certainly not qualified to improve it. Guinnog 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added two more references to the article, in English, from two different college professor's sites. They're pretty damning. I am writing without a POV, I'm just a guy who can type "Bayreuth circle" into Google, and see what comes up. From that, even if the article won't approach "good article" heights, the term looks pretty verifiable. AnonEMouse 23:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, in response to requests I have rewritten the article with proper references. I deleted one external link which said nothing about the 'BC' except to mention that Chamberlain 'was a member' of it. The other link, which is pretty footling, I have left so you can all assess it yourself. I have given Frederic Spotts's book as appropriate literature; he at least knows what he's talking about and has researched all the German publications relating to Bayreuth. Enjoy.--Smerus 23:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I approve. Didn't read it all, but what I skimmed appears to have the proper arch tone and raised-eyebrow feel that your skepticism imparts to it. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, and I'm sure you mean well, but I am finding it difficult to see how your edits are more than just deleting references, and arguing, in the article, for the deletion of the article, for lack of those same references. I won't revert your edits without a bit more consensus, since that would be just an edit war, but I hope there is something you could do other than delete my and others' work. By the way, the Bnai Brith you have left with the wonderful comment "does not, as has been claimed by a previous editor of this article, mention the 'Bayreuth Circle'." contains the text: "Richard’s wife Cosima Lizst, the daughter of composer Franz Lizst, was also a vicious antisemite, and after his death in 1893 she consolidated a Bayreuth Circle which attracted such antisemites as racist writer H.S. Chamberlain. This circle attracted the elite of German intelligentsia and royalty, including both Kaisers Wilhelm I and II."AnonEMouse 23:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re the references - I deliberately removed the German references. Neither I - nor anyone who has contributed - knows what these say. Someone picked up two reference titles from [www.copac.ac.uk] or somewhere, with articles in two obscure German periodicals, not exactly available through your local library. And how many English readers of Wikipedia could read thme, even if they could find them? English articles should show English sources, as a matter of principle - if none are available it's a sign of weakness of the article topic. sorry about the so-called 'Bnei Brith' quote - write in haste, repent at leisure. The quote is actually from a review of the autobiography of Wagner's self-hating grandson, and cannot count strongly as a powerful citation for the topic. I still think the article should be deleted, btw. --Smerus 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
You actually removed 3 references, in English, that I put in, including 2 with quotes, from university sites. Please look at the "your edit" link I put in above. I'm glad to know that it was inadvertent, but I must ask that you be more careful about that. You're quite right that I haven't read the German references, but per WP:AGF, we need to assume that the editor who put them in has. We can't go around deleting all references we haven't read on the assumption that no one else has read them either. AnonEMouse 23:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I see the good Eusebeus has erased my nice article and replaced it by a couple of sentences. I have corrected them, by the way. I can't help feeling this was just a little high-handed on Eusebius's part - I shall invoke the shade of Robert Schumann, who originally used his pseudonym, and was a responsible musical critic, to haunt him. It seems I can't win - I am castigated for not using my (alleged) expertise, and then when I use it to produce an informed article, it is effectively deleted. C'est la vie, c'est die Scheisse......Anybody who wants to see a 'proper' article on the topic (insofar as there can be one) can see my article by clicking on the history.--Smerus 08:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted and restored the status quo ante, minus your most recent edits. As I pointed out in my edit summary, apparently Eusebeus attempted to accomplish by "editing" what he could not by deleting. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppers crossing cricket club

This is a suburban turf-cricket club in Melbourne. The highest type of cricket below interstate cricket is grade cricket. Turf cricket is a level below this, and is thus two tiers below first-class cricket. I don't think it is notable as a social phenomenon, as local suburban cricket matches usually attract 50 spectators.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest this makes a good case for deleting a lot of those lower baseball league entries too, as also being not notable enough. Paddles 15:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think a professional sports team drawing 151,000 paid spectators a season and which has included 90-odd major league players (San Jose Giants (California League)) in its history counts as non-notable. In no way are the SJ Giants "of the same level" as this club. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it reasonable to play the simple numbers game when you consider the huge difference in total population and supporting populations between Australia and the US. It is still a state league and as such is classed in the same level. Ansell 12:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Metamagician3000 11:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jetha Lila

Unable to verify notability of subject matter. A query made using the Google search engine produces 64 relevant results, some of which merely duplicated/mirrored the Wikipedia entry. Folajimi 15:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral for now. The creator of that article produced what looks like some useful finance-related edits for WP. Moreover s/he is still sporadically active (last edit 21-Apr-06), so perhaps you might make contact. --BillC 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acad Ronin: I am the creator of the article/stub. I posted a longer reply to Folajimi on their talk page. My key point is that I can see no value to throwing away factual, documented information. This lead to the article cited could benefit someone researching Indians in East Africa, the impact of the Zanzibar Revolution on the ethnic make-up of Zanzibar, or its economy, and a variety of other topics. The source article is a chapter in an obscure book and I only found it after years of keeping an eye out for any info on Jetha Lila for some work I am doing on the history of foreign banks in East Africa. What makes Wikipedia valuable is not the articles on well-known topics. That information is readily available in many places. It is the information that specialists and hobbyists post on arcana that is Wikipedia's unique contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acad Ronin (talk • contribs)
  • Acad Ronin: If you are concerned about verifiability, read the source article. The author based it on field and archival research in Zanzibar. The reason I was looking for more info re Jetha Lila was because the name of the bank and the fact that it was a private bank of Indian origin had shown up in various directories of banks, and in a scholarly article of banking in East Asia. As for notability, I reiterate my point that almost by definition there is a surfeit of information on notable topics. One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that for instance I can look up almost any US Navy vessel by name or number, and find a capsule history, contributed by someone who is a ship geek, just as I am a bank geek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acad Ronin (talk • contribs)
    • Point of Information: For the sake of argument, let's say that the source qualifies. How can I obtain a copy of the source article for the purpose of verification? (Rule of thumb is to have two independent sources, but that is a different matter...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folajimi (talk • contribs)
      • You could visit a library where it is available. As all necessary bibliographical information is in the reference, I don't understand exactly what your problem is here. u p p l a n d 09:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only problem I have is with your tone. In case you haven't noticed, the author said that the information came from an obscure source. Hence the PoI. Folajimi 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry for the tone, but my point is that now, after the author has located this article discussing the topic and used it to write this article, it will not be as difficult for you, me or anyone else to find it again, because we already have the reference. u p p l a n d 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia has rules regarding the verifiability of content which is submitted. As it stands, authenticating the cited reference is an issue, due to the inaccessibility of the current source. In other words, saying "Trust me, this reference is legit" is suspect, at best. Folajimi 13:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 07:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just reformatted the comments above to make it clearer who wrote what. (Acad Ronin, please sign after your comments; it will be easier to read as it is what most people will be used to here.) u p p l a n d 09:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs work, but I don't see any real argument for deletion here. This is an Indian trading house and bank in East Africa that was founded in the 1880s and closed in the 1960s. There is no reason to expect a large number of Google hits. u p p l a n d 13:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uppland. The article doesn't seem particularly controversial, so if AR says they found a copy of the book, that's good enough. If it were controversial, we could ask for more sources. BTW, the Google hits that there are point to notability. For example, [this one] says they controlled Zanzibar's financial network. That's pretty notable. AnonEMouse 15:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The inclusion of such articles are vital to counter systemic bias. The original author has provided a reference. It would seem to me that assuming good faith would require that those bringing up verifiability should provide an account of their failed attempts to verify the citation. For a book, the first step would be to see if the cited work actually exists. This can be done by checking the online catalog at a depository library such as the Library of Congress or the British Library. Another step would be to check to see if the work is in WorldCat. (Anyone in the United States who is affiliated with any College or University, or has a library card at a public library has either direct or indirect (via the librarian) access to WorldCat.) I have done this, and the work cited does exist. If I truly doubted the work actually covers the material, I could order it via inter-library loan, although that might take a few weeks. Dsmdgold 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added a second source to the article. This source is what sent me off on the hunt for further information as it only mentions the bank's existence and its being an Indian private bank in Zanzibar. As for the main reference, the Tominaga article, I just went back to WorldCat and it is available from 39+ libraries, including more than thirty in the US. Anyone wanting to find the article could get it via Interlibrary Loan. Acad Ronin 16:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs wikification Crum375 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Acad Ronin, part of the problem here is that the article doesn't say very much about its subject. It ought really to say something like:
"Jetha Lila was a private bank founded in Zanzibar in 1880 by the Bombay-born merchant Jetha Liladhar, later taking responsibility for control of Zanzibar's finances. The bank's initial operations were confined to banking commission activities, however in 1910 it began money-changing and in 1920 represented the interests in Zanzibar of the Westminster Bank. In 1933 it was issued a trading license by the Zanzibar government to operate as a bank, and became responsible for controlling Zanzibar's financial interests from the 1930's until the 1964 revolution in Zanzibar and the overthrow of its Sultan. During that time, (etc, etc....)
(References added at end)"
I'm not sure of all the facts on this subject, so the above will probably need to be rewritten somewhat. Given the sources you have, it should be possible to produce something like the above which I am sure everyone here would support. Much of the battle over the notability of subjects in Wikipedia article is won or lost in the first sentence of the article; that's why it's best to start with a sentence that clearly defines the subject, hence: Jetha Lila was a private bank founded in Zanzibar in 1880. --BillC 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. I bit the bullet and did it, incorporating the original text and facts, the text above, and a contribution from Lambiam. If anyone feels this should not have been done, or should have been done differently, then feel free to revert me or edit the article. (I also removed the Wikify notice, and assigned categories to the article). --BillC 21:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep, I think its quite absurd to have to debate this. Making this sort of information accessible is precisely what Wikipedia is for. Further, I'd like to make the point that the original referrer's objection is uninformed, and I will run through the correct procedure because I've seen this error more than once recently. The article came to AfD because he couldnt 'verify notability'. I can't verify the notability of a lot of things, but as long as I read the content of the article, I know the (unverified) subject of the article is notable. I then observe the references, and know that the content of the article is verifiable. I dont combine the two steps. Hornplease 07:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are strongly advised to act in a civilised manner; casting aspersions will get you nowhere. Folajimi 09:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you mean civil, not civilised. Nevertheless, if I have somehow offended you, I apologise. However, please note that my choice of words was not meant to offend, but to exactly describe the situation. Please familiarise yourself with - or, perhaps, read again - WP:V and WP:N; you will note that my points are borne out by the consensus on those policy pages. Once again, there are specific 'cutoffs' for notability for educational institutions and academics and bands and so on; but for something of this sort, where a strong argument for notability - namely, control over the finances of a sovereign state - are clearly set out in the article, WP:N is satisfied and the problem reduces simply to one of verifiability. Given the provision of references that satisfy the reliable source test, WP:V is met as well. The problem arises if you try to apply the two criteria simultaneously. That is not something you have to do. Hornplease
    • "I think you mean civil, not civilised..."
Spare me your lesson on semantics/syntax; I meant what I said, and you are free to interpret that as you see fit. Starting out with adjectives like "absurd" and "uninformed" is anything but congenial.
FWIW, I had thought of ignoring your remarks (as I did with Dsmdgold's conflagratory rhetoric); but I will make one more attempt at clarifying my case before a mêlée erupts...
My best efforts (which includes google queries, and searching the catalog of my region's central library) failed to yield any reliable sources/references which would have helped establish the notability of the subject matter. The perception of conflation regarding notability with verifiability is inaccurate; the issue I had with the nominated entry was the apparent lack of sources which could be verified, not the article's content.
At any rate, I hope this AfD gets closed by an admin soon, since the nomination's raison d'être has been OBE'd — the current article looks radically different when compared to the nominated entry. Folajimi 13:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no mêlée. However, I think confusing civil with civilised is itself a violation of WP:CIV... Hornplease 14:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A quick look at JSTOR (online academic journal archive) today shows a couple of additional mentions of the bank in academic journals such as The International and Comparative Law Quarterly and Journal of African Law ; there really is no verifiability issue here. Humansdorpie 08:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walstad's Paradox

Claims to be related to set theory, but unreferenced and no signs of rigor. Not a standard mathematical concept anywhere as far as I can tell. Google yields 3 hits, one of which is this article, and the other two are from discussion forums, so very non-notable.

I am also nominating the biographical page of the person who purportedly devised the above theory as NN.

  • Do Not Delete The author did graduate Highscool in the top of his class and also tested in the top %99 for Math on the ACT. He is currently pursuing his degree in physics and environmental engineering at New Mexico Tech and is in high esteem. He was able to prove that Russell's assumption that everything does not contain itself is wrong. That is because the power set of everything is no bigger than the size of everything, because the size of everything is 1/0, to which there is no greater value. Sincerely, the author's spokesperson Bossk2 18:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
You may wish to better acquaint yourself with Russell's Paradox before attempting to disprove it. -- GWO
Thank you for your comment, I truly appreciate it. I am very familiar with Russell's Paradox. Did you read what I just stated above? Russell's Paradox is based off the assumption that the set of all sets can not contain itself because the power set of the set of all sets must be bigger than the set of all sets itself. However, this is incorrect and the reason is because Russell did not know or did not realize that the size of the set of all sets is 1/0, and there can be no greater number. Thus the power set of the set of all sets is no bigger than the set of all sets itself, and thankfully, this means that the set of all sets can contain itself. In turn this means that the set of all sets which do not contain themselves may be defined as the empty set, for in reality everything is self-containing and it must be so since there is no greater number than 1/0. Hopefully this clears up the confusion.Bossk2 20:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
No. It isn't. Russell's paradox makes absolutely no reference to power sets. Russell's paradox is merely that a set defined as "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves" is not well-defined. That's it. No power sets, no cardinality, no infinities, and certainly no need to talk about the magnitude of 1/0.
Love,
An actual mathematician.
  • Comment The article with Lee's biography was just edited to include more pertinent academic information such as what was just listed above. Also Lee's ties to Dr. Penny Boston and Dr. Lisa Young were added as well as information about the new species of mushroom which he is currently describing with Dr. Gaston Guzman for either Mycotaxon or Journal of Mycological Research. Thus the article has been greatly improved to exemplify more interesting information and I recommend it not be deleted.
  • Delete per WP:NOR and, frankly, per WP:NFT. Arguing whether the empty set has no value and attempting to assign meaning based on bad analogy to "1/0"?? Kid, stop trying the mushrooms and userfy this non-rigorous fluff until you get it covered by reliable sources by WP's standards. For a topic like this, the source needs to be a peer-reviewed journal, or some really substantial coverage by general mass media. Barno 20:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly respectfully object because it is clear that the empty set is what is defined as undefined, not the compete set, 1/0. This is plainly evident to anybody who can open their eyes to the inherent definitions of these concepts and thus it is not original research. Furthermore WP:NFT is a category I do not understand because it implies that important realizations can not happen to anyone at any given moment, by serendipitous or other fortuitous means. Additionally, the way that you have put 1/0 in quotation marks with two question marks after seems to indicate that you yourself do not understand the concept of 1/0 and thus I do not understand why you think you can identify a bad analogy when you do not understand the concepts involved. I think it is clear that most people do not understand the concept of 1/0 and perhaps they should read the article about the theory of 1/0 so that they can gain enlightenment about this mysterious and all-important concept which has been ignored for centuries and which was only adressed by Brahmagupta. The information is being posted in good faith for everyone's benefit and it would be a shame and an injustice to delete such fundamentally important realizations which are an inherent result of human curiosity and our belief in understanding everything, i.e. 1/0. Sincerely, Bossk2 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
  • Delete per Barno. Reconsider after publication of these topics in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal... -- Scientizzle 21:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - having read the defense of the author on this AfD, I am sure that he's either hoaxing or he's psychotic. There's an outside possibility that he just plain doesn't understand it and overemphasises things. - Richardcavell 22:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you be so sure? As a wikipedian you are supposed to be exercising good faith. I have released this information in good faith, so you should take it in good faith. Sincerely, 129.138.44.62 23:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
  • Delete both. I'd prefer to userfy Lee Field Walstad, but the author claims to be only a representative. Melchoir 01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry for the confusion. Yes I am Lee Walstad, but I serve as a spokesperson for the theory of one divided by zero until it is accepted or somebody takes my place. The reason I do not claim to be the author of the theory of one divided by zero is because I believe that it is the sole property of 1/0 itself, and I have merely realized what it was telling me, that it is the number everything. Also I am not the only one who has realized this, Arceliar and Edward Solomon are others that I know of. It would be a discredit to them to claim the theory of 1/0 as original research. Walstad's paradox is only an extension.129.138.2.196 02:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
      You should be aware that creating an autobiographical article on Wikipedia is a serious faux pas. You might want to put this into User:Bossk2 if you really want to talk about yourself. (Or editing such an artcle for any other purpose than correcting egregiously incorrect or slanderous statements in it. Assuming you and Bossk1 are not the same person.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fascinatingly philosophical, but unfortunately is textbook original research. I wish Mr. Walstad well, and if his work gets published in mathematical journals we can write an article about him then. Fagstein 02:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as non-notable, original research, and unverifiable (or more specifically "verifiably false"?). Ardric47 03:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again I respectfully object to all of the above. Walstad's Paradox is an extension of the theory of 1/0 which is a natural realization that anybody can make and which other people have made (see the article), therefore it cannot be claimed to be original research, it belongs to 1/0. Please provide a reference for why you say the theory is verifiably false. Russell was not considering the fact that the set of all sets is 1/0, and the power set can NOT be greater than this value.
  • Delete as violation of WP:NOR and ban the obnoxious author who pollutes the discussion page with unsigned comments. --Chaser 07:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Actually nonsense, if not exactly "patent nonsense". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GIT+RP+TOE=nonsense. —Ruud
  • Delete per Ruud--Deville (Talk) 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and how! "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves may be the empty set"? Is there a WP:NOT for demonstrably false articles? --Victor Lighthill 04:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 National stereotypes. Nothing there to merge.  RasputinAXP  c 15:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National typecasts

overlaps content on several other pages --M@rēino 17:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does contain some extra information- as to the formation of typecasts. Perhaps some facts could be transferred to another page if this one must be deleted.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 07:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with National stereotypes, per Sc147. Comment about NPOV: the stereotypes themselves are quite offensive, but stating the fact that these stereotypes exist can be done neutrally. However, it is a slippery slope. Editors must be very careful not to use lists like this as a cover for racist/xenophobic jokes. --woggly 10:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, fails WP:WEB.  RasputinAXP  c 15:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LudumDare

a non-notable website that holds an insignificant contest every two years Notorious4life 18:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the website is non-notable, most of the contests (two per year btw.) were held without it, and it likely will disappear again soon and come up again in half a year, at the current address or another. The event itself however seems to be quite well known among game programmers. --Allefant 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just removed the part about the website from the article, so consider only the significance of the competition event. --Allefant 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be easy to verify the relevance for game programmers: There was a slashdot article on it, and it's usually announced on several game programming sites like gamedev. --Allefant 00:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, recurring event regularly covered on slashdot and in other major tech media outlets. Needs some cleanup though. Night Gyr 21:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Mutambara

NOTE: Article is identical in content to Zimbabwe News, which is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on development in Zimbabwe

This is a fairly clear case of a personal essay (about Arthur Mutambara, leader of one faction of Zimbabwe's Movement for Democratic Change). It may be fairly cogently argued but it is not an encyclopaedia article. David | Talk 08:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Sincerity

Though the article is cleverly coloured at the start to look like a serious article (e.g. cites of legitimate books like Scarry & Steiner} it seems to be largely a hoax, & the article eventually devolves into a fart joke. The history of the article shows that it seems always intended as a joke (rather than having been vandalized). ND 20:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Actually if you do a search on google there's plenty of stuff on it, having checked the history of the article I'd say it's clearly been vandalized: the initial post seems pretty sensible. Its subsequent edits that have pushed the page beyond the pale, however the amount of discussion around the issue on the internet would argue for its inclusion. Driller thriller 21:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looking a bit through the history I'm wondering if the best thing is to simply revert to the very first version of the article? It looks to me like the problem is that the article started off as a serious piece on one topic (the mooted "New Sincerity" in the wake of 9/11) & then got expanded via a completely different topic (a radio show), & then the latter seems to have attracted some jokers (fans of the radio show? grad students with nothing better to do?) who have completely overrun the original, well-intended article with piles of nonsense. -- I'm not very impressed with the person who's posted to the Talk page that the article deserves preservation because it's "brilliantly retarded". ND 04:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I don't think anyone's suggested that this is original research. Driller thriller 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I just did. Stifle (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am actually writing a paper on this at the moment, and I assure you there is fair basis for New Sincerity to be included, but the article has certainly been vandalised and changed beyond the truth of the matter. Although many people claim to be the originator of New Sincerity, the phrase has been around for almost a decade in describing the work of director Wes Anderson and more recently people like Jared Hess. I think there has been enough discussion about this in various essays and magazine articles to warrent it's inclusion. (Hippo Shaped)15:22, 06 May 2006
    • If you're writing a paper, you'll have no problem citing sources for this phrase.
Onion: Does it bother you to be potentially pegged as the head of a new movement? I know there’s a Film Comment article that mentions you as part of something called ‘the new sincerity.’ Do you pay attention to any of that?
Wes Anderson: Well, I don’t know. Who else is in ‘the new sincerity?’
Onion: I don’t know. I think it’s just you at this point, and they’re waiting for people to line up behind you.
Wes Anderson: Oh, well, I’m not waiting for that line to form, and I don’t expect it to. I don’t know if there’s ever going to be much of a movement in that direction. It sounds like one that could be boring for a lot of people.
It appears Anderson himself doesn't know anything about it. http://www.coldbacon.com/movies/wesanderson.html
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Strong Oppose Well that interview was from 1999, and references the 'Film Comment' magazine article from January that year. It was around that time the phrase started so of course he didn't know. Whether or not you agree on who invented the phrase or when, the phrase describes something not described in any other way and has been used in a variety of places over the last 7 years. I'd fix this article myself, but i've never really written an article in the Wikipedia style before, but if I have time I will give it a go. Almost the whole thing needs to be reorganized and rewritten, but not deleted. (Hippo Shaped) Re:Above(17th May 2006)
  • Delete. Unsourced neologism. -- GWO
  • Comment The concept doesn't seem to be entirely made up for Wikipedia: [18]. E.g. the first draft of the article seems genuine enough, no fart jokes there. I don't know about notability though, and the lack of sources is unfortunate. Weregerbil 13:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, quite a few Google hits, although there are zero for New Sincericists, so the last few sentences could probably go. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah ha, learn something new yada yada yada :). Thanks mate, appreciate the response. - Glen TC (Stollery) 14:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Looking at both sides, I the arguments in favour of deletion outweigh the arguments in favour of keep. If this school is notable enough (and not just another small private school like many others that advertise on late night TV), I have no prejudice against the recreation of this article as long as it is no longer an ad. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olean Business Institute

Advertisement

  1. Lincher 19:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 09:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. abakharev 12:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Kalinchuk

Not notable enough, Delete abakharev 10:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedied the article as per Kevin and BHG abakharev 12:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nayh

Non-notable chat site. Makes no claim passing WP:WEB, no Alexa rank. Weregerbil 10:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like ad copy. Does this group have any achievments to date? --woggly 10:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry B. Scott

Asserts insufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janey

Very minor fictional character. Delete or merge to The Simpsons. --Nlu (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Mundlapati

This guy has no specific content nor any special track record. malapati 10:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it doesn't meet WP:BIO

However I'd like give you some back ground. 80% of people in India are suffering from too much sarcasm and social injustices for the past 4000 years. I wanted to inject compassion and hence I've created sasiprize to set an example. Since then I am also using "unknown" as user name so that I can be neutral and objective. unknown 04:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Brookie. Capitalistroadster 19:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's Stag Party

Wikipedia is not a web space provider. Please try www.myspace.com instead. Weregerbil 10:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus-Metaphor

Edit history shows that this is from an unpublished thesis of the contributer, which would make it clear original research. Was prodded by another editor, prod removed, so taking it to afd MartinRe 10:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The theory described in this article is no original research, it is published with Springer (see: [[23]]) and has been presented at an international conference on human-computer interaction (Interact 2005 - see: [[24]]).

It presents a novel approach to user-centred interface design, so its not established yet, but well accepted in the research community (if you count peer-reviewed international conferences). Obviously I am the researcher working on this theory, but my description of the approach here on Wikipedia is by all means meant to be objective.

You can find out more about my work on: [[25]]. I am part of the Human-Centred Systems Group at University College London. Here you can also find that a second paper on this approach will be published in September in Germany with Oldenbourg, another well known publisher for research along with a presentation at Mensch & Computer conference.

I will revise this article asap besides all the other stuff I have to do, so that it fits as good as possible with the wikipedia standards.

Please let me know what other concerns anyone has with sharing this approach on wikipedia. You can also get in touch with me personally, as I think that the means of communication through wikipedia are by far to complicated and inefficient... --Slaqua 17:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The publication record indeed strikes me as if it might make this borderline verifiable in our sense. I might reconsider if the article got a better intro that stated more clearly the context and scope of this idea: Name the field of science this belong to, give a proper definition, explain its claim to notability, etc. I'm still not entirely sure, though. Not every novel technical idea that somebody publishes somewhere gets an article here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • update I have changed the article as requested. Any further changes necessary ? --81.1.118.241 00:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I suspect it still doesn't pass muster. It is now a report about a concept introduced in a 2005 paper which described it as "A Novel Concept". It does not, however, appear to be a notable novel concept unless you can show that this concept has been widely reported or cited. Fan1967 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry for causing any inconveniences in this "deletion process", I am new to the "adding stuff to wikipedia process". BUT I have checked the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, which I assume is the crucial one right now (relating to the above comment).

It states: "For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it might be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper ... If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source." As I mentioned earlier, this research has been peer-reviewed by various experts of the field and confirmed for publication. It is published with Springer, a very reputable publisher for research. It has been presented at a reputable international conference, being acknowledged by fellow researches. Further work on this theory is being published and presented in September (again reputable publisher and conference - it's German chapter of ACM). I think this kind of review process (taking months for every paper) is by far more accurate and reliable than publishing stuff at a newspaper - which all you should know. So stating newspaper level verification as a measure for reliability in wikipedia policies should than by far be met for this article. --Slaqua 14:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems also interesting that my vote for keeping the article has been deleted - no idea who that was - maybe you guys should also check your objectivity ?! - Or teach me, if I am not allowed to vote ?! --Slaqua 14:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, that appears to have been removed in error by IP address 81.1.118.241, when they posted the update above[26]. I've taken the liberty of putting it back in again. Regards, MartinRe 15:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. see below Being presented at a conference, and published in the procedings, is not necessarily peer-reviewed. I do not list my papers which were presented in that manner in my publication list. I don't see it as yet meeting WP:V. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sorry, do I get something wrong here? These papers have been peer-reviewed, in fact by six international researchers - or do you want to say that I lie ? I do not really understand the measures with which people seem to judge here. I do not know what things you have published, or where - feel free to let me know. I clearly state, who I am, what I do, where it has been published. If you feel that is not sufficient for Wikipedia policies - of course I cannot say anything, after all its a democratic collaborative tool, but please keep in mind these policies when you judge yourself and stay objective.... thanks a lot. --Slaqua 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm just saying that conference proceedings are not necessarily peer-reviewed to the extent of "traditional" journals, in that what was presented is what is published, rather than what was invited to have been presented (which was subject to peer review). (The publications now in the references do not qualify as peer-reviewed. Your thesis does, but that touches on WP:VAIN.)
Changed vote to Delete without prejudice. The problem is a mixture of WP:V and WP:VAIN, so that if someone other than the primary authors of the concept writes an article, quoting published, fully peer-reviewed works (other than conference proceedings, theses, etc.), a technically correct article could be written. It's clear that WP:N is met, as there are articles about web sites based on this model (or metaphor, if you prefer), but the correct, verifiable, name is open for consideration. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First of all thanks for the productive criticism Arthur, I honestly appreciate the going through the arguments, rather than just voting for delete and then leaving it there. Nevertheless, I am not sure, whether maybe in your area of mathmatics, the common way to publish your work is a different one. I know that especially in social sciences, much focus is on journal publications, often based on the final thesis of a PhD. I am not sure how it is with maths ?! However, in computer science, most researchers publish primarily at important conferences like CHI (other ACM's), IEEE conferences or also Interact. That might have to do with the fast changes in the field that you as a researcher want to stay ahead of as much as possible of course. In terms of peer-reviews, again I am not sure how it works in other fields, but the paper I submit for peer-review is finished paper, including all theory, all experiments, all analysis. What you do after the peer-review are minor revisions for the final version to go to print with the publisher and maybe in response to some reviewers comments. --Slaqua 00:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The JPS talk to me 12:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch coming to the New World

I don't think that Wikipedia is the appropriate place for a presentation of what fourth grade students in one school or another have recently studied. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 12:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_9&oldid=52298110"