Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 1
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.134.219.52 (talk) at 12:50, 1 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< August 31 | September 2 > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedily kept as rewritten bio substub. FCYTravis 06:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity nonsense FCYTravis 04:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as Eric Van is somewhat notable as "the online statistical guru of Red Sox Nation," but the article needs a major cleanup. SycthosTalk 04:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Ginar 04:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --Terence Ong 04:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP, and do not blank content while in AfD 70.18.161.203 04:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What I removed was POV, OR, nonsense *and* unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 04:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep verifiable stub I created. FCYTravis 04:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In response to the previous weak keep comment, this article has not been stubbed. No worries, I have stubbed it accordingly to give it a chance. A one sentence article about a Red Sox statistician is not encyclopedic, and the information presented in past versions from the history section were arguably useless. This one sentence can easily be plugged into the team's main article, or it can simply and effectively be deleted. – Я не имею никакой жизни | существую 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- keep please that was confusing for a moment but it is good now Yuckfoo 10:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if we're talking about FCYTravis's version, Delete as unsalvagable nonsense otherwise. -Colin Kimbrell 17:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep for FCYTravis's version. --King of All the Franks 17:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the current version as notable and verifiable. Turnstep 18:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep but needs expansion, why isn't this stubbed -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 19:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable biography. No Guru 21:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an ad or plushy description and has little encyclopedic significance. ~ clearthought 00:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the claims of the article have truth then this might be notable. As it stands, though, it looks to me like a lot of hot air; but I am perfectly willing to change my vote pending a rewrite. Danny Lilithborne 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unencyclopedic, reads like an ad. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete This is just WP:VSCA copied from User:The Daily Reel's page ... should also AfD Jamie Patricof as part of the same self-promotion campaign (click "Half Nelson" on that page. :-) --Dennette 01:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like User:The Daily Reel's user page is also being used in violation of policy. fbb_fan 02:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 05:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per WP:WW -PEAR 06:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wheel war? I don't get it. Mak (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but if it is kept, move to The Daily Reel. — Gary Kirk | talk! 09:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article says the site only opened in august 2006, i say its not quite notable yet, maybe in the future. --mathewguiver 14:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Mak (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Cynical 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 01:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Non-notable ad. Moreschi 14:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Auto)biography marked for speedy deletion, but notablity is asserted though the film credits listed. I don't believe that it establishes sufficient notablity for an article though. Thryduulf 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment copied from article talk page by Thryduulf 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Article created by Rsp3studio, so this is likely a vanity article. The subject has an IMDB page (though that does not establish notability). I am also skeptical of someone who purports to be a notable composer at age 20, but that could just be the fact that I'm old and bitter. -- Merope 20:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after having seen the IMDB entry. Only 2 credits for musical involvement in very obscure productions, neither of which have 5 IMDB votes yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity article. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 05:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Like everyone else said, vanity. --Veesicle 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficiently notable, per WP:BIO, and absence of reliable, reputable sources, per WP:V. This guy is obviously pretty talented, and may very well achieve fame some day, but not yet. --Satori Son 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity —Khoikhoi 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 MERGE into Wheel of Fortune. Herostratus 07:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Utter cruft of extremely limited interest and notability. —tregoweth (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as cruft.--Jersey Devil 01:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NoelleWiley 18:39, 1 August 31 2006 (UTC) Shouldnt really be here... Maybe catergorize(sp?) it with 'Wheel of fortune'??
- Delete Crufty. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Gives fancruft a Bad Name. --Dennette 02:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Who notices these things? --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 05:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone else. JIP | Talk 09:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per above, too close to the grain for an encyclopedia. Now, the evolution of the Jeopardy! set, that's worth an article. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, uh, we have Jeopardy! set evolution as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG Keep - I don't give a damn about WOF, but it is notable, and the way it's set has cahnged over time is an important part of teh show. perhaps the article could do with some work, clean up and a better title - but that is not grounds for deletion. it is not "fancruft"--ZayZayEM 14:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- D L T (please send $250 directly to me to buy a vowel). Only notable item is the move to the electronic puzzle board, which did make news. But that is worth 2 sentences in the main article at best. —Twigboy 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune Cynical 21:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn —Khoikhoi 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jeopardy! set evolution was recently listed for AfD and the result was keep. Deletion of some other set evolution article in light of this may build systemic bias. Tinlinkin 04:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune is appropriate in this instance. Tinlinkin 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune JTRH 23:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune; useless information, but possibly notable for fans, and doesn't deserve its own article. --Dennis The TIger 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune. There's some bits of info here that have potential within the WOF article proper. [[Briguy52748 18:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
- STRONG Keep or Merge - The WOF set has changed just as much as if not much more than the Jeopardy set. CrossEyed7 05:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- MERGE -- And expand if possible. --Aussie Evil 04:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This AFD is hereby closed; I believe merging the most significant bits of text into Pokémon Emerald and redirecting the page will be the most satisfactory outcome. —Encephalon 10:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is unimportant and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Those caves only play a small role in the games and don't deserve to have an article of their own. They don't have any Pokémon in them but Groudon and Kyogre. The caves might deserve a section in their articles but not an article of their own. Hybrid 00:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fancruft, maybe it can be merged though, into a relevant page. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. --Dennette 02:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Did you forget Groudon and Kyogre are legendary Pokemon? (The caves are in Emerald only, though, so...) TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Pokemon Emerald, as the caves only appear in that game. AgentPeppermint 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per AgentPeppermint Cynical 21:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Merge: Well, I don't wanna sound like I have anything against Pokémon (I can recite all 386 Pokémon in national Pokedex order by heart, for chrissakes!), but I think there are few locations outside the big cities within the Pokémon world's main regions worthy of an article of its own on Wikipedia. In the ideal world, I think, all articles on minor Pokemon locations (anything without a gym leader, in other words) would be merged into the articles on the regions themselves, with a crisp, summarized one-or-two-paragraph write-up on each location. I assume that having separate articles on each of the game's big towns and cities is the way it should be, and that's just fine; At the very least in any case, articles on caves, forests, and other locales without gym leaders should be merged into the articles on their respective regions. By that logic, Marine and Terra Cave should definitely be merged into the Hoenn article. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete fancruft. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 23:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto: Strong delete fancruft. Armon 16:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 merge to Wheel of Fortune (American game show). I've decided to merge only the first section, on show records, and not list every grand prize winner or loser. But the stuff will be there in the history, and this is a wiki, after all. Mangojuicetalk 14:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonencyclopedic fancruft. —tregoweth (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's "fancruft"?JTRH 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Marge to Wheel of Fortune Yes fancruft, and there is a similar page nominated for deletion today as well. JTRH: WP:FAN if youre interested. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Totally unsourced, violates WP:VERIFY. --Dennette 02:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If sources can be found then merge to Wheel of Fortune. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 05:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delelete unencyclopedic, unsourced, American biased.--ZayZayEM 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune --mathewguiver 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune -- JTRH 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune Cynical 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Michael, et al.; those who are inclined to edit Wheel of Fortune then may, to be sure, determine to what extent the material can be sourced and is encyclopedic (I'm inclined to ascribe the appellative fancruft to all of it, but many of our game show articles, it should be observed, are replete with similar collections of minutiae, such that there appears to be no consensus for its categorical removal). Joe 00:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per all above - noteable enough for the wheel of Fortune article, but not enough to have an article of it's own. - Blood red sandman 15:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune. This fits in better as a part of the Wheel article. Chris 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge This is ridiculous. Delete it because it's unsourced? Put up an unsourced tag! Delete it because it's American-centric? IT'S ABOUT THE AMERICAN VERSION OF THE SHOW! If you want ones about versions outside of the US, then make them, but don't delete this one. Personally, I think it's too long to merge into the already long main WOF article, and I'm fine with leaving it as its own article. This is Wikipedia, for crying out loud. CrossEyed7 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- merge with wheel of fortune article is best Yuckfoo 17:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep valid spinoff from wheel of fortune... will only clutter the main article and be spun right back off if merged. ALKIVAR™ 20:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a significant addition to the sum total of useful information about the glorious and tragic history of the human race. Herostratus 13:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonencyclopedic fancruft. —tregoweth (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As above. Plus most of the shows are nevr going to be linked to. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Barneycryft. Punkmorten 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, comment: there are worse lists in wikipedia. reason: I can see this list having some merit, and that more than a few (maybe not most) shows should eventually get links. Just cos its a giant purple dildo, doesn't make it not notable--ZayZayEM 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice to future re-creation if the links that ZayZayEM suggests do in fact materialise. Cynical 21:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 23:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My bias tells me delete and protect with extreme prejudice, but neutrality must prevail here. Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 02:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedy Delete per Omi8 below. --- GIen 08:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP. Just 5 Google hits here. Delete. BlueValour 01:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NoelleWiley 18:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Not well known enough![reply]
- Delete Per WP:CORP. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:VSCA created by owner. --Dennette 02:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The creating user blanked the page, so I {{db-blanked}} it. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what a wrestling move like "Loco Driver" is doing in an encyclopedia. This is basically a 3 sentence article if you fix it up without adding new information. It's mostly a definition and a description of how to execute it. Zephyr2k 01:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "finishing move" or a nn wrestler.--Jersey Devil 01:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "finishing move" or a nn wrestler.--NoelleWiley 18:37, 31 August 2006
- Delete WP:NOT a dictionary. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I wrestle and I've never heard of that. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 05:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, This Is A Non-Notable Wrestling Move, Probably A Vanity Article. JIP | Talk 09:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too Many Capitalised Words. Oh, And Unencyclopedic.--ZayZayEM 14:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable or encyclopedic --Veesicle 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, whether notable or not (I believe it's the latter), the article is utter crap. Cynical 21:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Cynical. —Khoikhoi 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Barely legible scrap of information that might have a place in a broader article but not - definitely not - an article of its own. BTLizard 10:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedy Keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete AFD nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:74.132.122.141. Procedural nomination, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 01:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - He was in the Olympics! A clear pass of WP:BIO: "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles." --Daniel Olsen 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Otherwise you might as well AfD the other 171 entries in Category:Badminton players at the 2004 Summer Olympics. (Homework, people! :-) --Dennette 02:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Olympic athlete. Clearly notable. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 05:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having been in the Olympics only once is not in itself notable; having won an Olympic medal, OTOH, most certainly is. --Dennette 05:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Having been to the Olympics allows your inclusion under WP:BIO, specifically because you're "notable" WilyD 14:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad ... that's obviously why the other 171 one-liners have articles. :-) --Dennette 14:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Olympians tend to be notable. Even the obscure ones get enough press coverage that they're miles away notability-wise from the gaming clans, micronations, forum trolls, and garage bands that show up daily on AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Olympics. Australian... errr... Badminton. Just Keep.--ZayZayEM 14:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 02:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:68.142.33.1. Procedural nom, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:BIO for lacking multiple third-party non-trivial articles about subject, no national awards, no evidence of substantial contributions in her field. Fails WP:V for lacking credible substantive sources to verify article. Only 1060 general Google hits for "Linda Kelliher Samets", which boils down to 30 distinct Ghits, which suggests non-notability. I note the hits are all for WP mirrors or similar user-entered listings, suggesting relentless self-promotion. Tychocat 09:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no establishing of actual notability, yet--ZayZayEM 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable blog; previous prod removed by author of article. I get 36 Google hits on "Hollywood Thoughts" and "Crowley". --Brianyoumans 01:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Alexa says the alleged "popular" website isn't in their top 100,000, and the actual traffic is somewhere lower than five millionth. Okay... that aside, fails WP:WEB for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles about it, no national awards, and I don't count the 14 distinct Ghits that the abovementioned 36 Ghits boil down to. When the counting gets that low, it's easy to see that most of the hits are from WP mirrors, and shout-outs from fellow bloggers. Tychocat 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE, non notable website--ZayZayEM 14:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:Wikipediatrix. Procedural nom, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 01:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: five distinct Google hits, either from Wikipedia or not about this person, so fails WP:V unless author or someone else gives sources. Fram 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Fram --mathewguiver 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources; "hit song" we don't have an article on, by an artist we don't have an article on. It exists, and has been favorably reviewed; but the review offers no indication that it is a hit, or that the subject wrote it. Vanity. JCScaliger 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until we can verify or disprove the claim about him being an amateur baseball commissioner. If it's true, it just about makes him notable in my book. Cynical 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 SPEEDY DELETE as a glaringly obvious personal attack. JIP | Talk 09:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More World of Warcruft. Speedy and Prod removed, article says "This term has no intentions of offending or poke fun of any person that name yatfan" Yet it reads as somewhat of an attack. Wildthing61476 01:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide. wikipediatrix 02:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Borderline attack page. ColourBurst 03:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 09:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Note that stating World of Warcruft in this case is not necessary and only shows your lack of neutrality, as this is clearly vandalism and a personal attack that would have been enough for the nomination to happen. Havok (T/C/c) 09:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:58.69.212.219. Procedural nom, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 01:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN band. Possible vanity article created by what may be a single purpose account. Resolute 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete given their significant similarity in names, it's possible that both of these are joke articles. Cynical 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:58.69.212.219. Procedural nom, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 01:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN band. Possible vanity article created by what may be a single purpose account. Resolute 05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete given their significant similarity in names, it's possible that both of these are joke articles. Cynical 21:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spamvertisement. Delete. BlueValour 02:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - pure adspam. - Richardcavell 02:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:VSCA --Dennette 02:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advertisement. Zephyr2k 02:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, blatant spam. Uses first person pronouns. JIP | Talk 09:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - obvious advertisement --mathewguiver 14:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, spamvertisement. NawlinWiki 15:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, spam Cynical 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nawlin. —Khoikhoi 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Merge/redirect. Xoloz 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The two individuals were only "knighted" last week, and have no history at all as a tag team under this name. fbb_fan 02:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - with King Booker's Court Clay4president 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Clay Cynical 21:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to King Booker's Court. --Satori Son 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a vanity-like biography and has little encyclopedic significance. Obviously self-promoting. See also here. ~ clearthought 02:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity / advertising / self promotion. fbb_fan 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. More WP:VSCA by the author of The daily reel. --Dennette 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per everyone else. Moreschi 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Founded in the year 2000; inactive after 3 years. Had at most 35 members. Not notable Zephyr2k 02:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - Scottmsg 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--ZayZayEM 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. From the tone, it probably breaks WP:VANITY as well Cynical 21:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nonnotable vanity page. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 23:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, rambling contextless information. Richardcavell 02:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable Zephyr2k 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable bloke. JIP | Talk 09:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE--ZayZayEM 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, borderline A7 Speedy Cynical 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 merge and redirect. --- Deville (Talk) 02:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another wrestling finisher. Just describes how to execute the move. Zephyr2k 02:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - But it needs organized. Clay4president 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Brian Kendrick. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Brian Kendrick. The article also needs to be expanded a bit. --Nishkid64 15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After browsing the article Brian Kendrick, I found a link toProfessional wrestling aerial techniques. It might be a better idea to redirect there since it says that Shiranui is also called Sliced Bread #2. But I don't know. I really don't know much about wrestling other than the names of the most well-known wrestlers. Zephyr2k 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to either Brian Kendrick or Professional wrestling aerial techniques, whatever is most appropriate (someone more familiar with the subject than I needs to make the call) Cynical 21:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Cynical and Zephyr2k. Hybrid 22:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonencyclopedic listcruft (although, apparently, "Barney" uses a lot of public domain songs). —tregoweth (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why doesn't the article have an AfD notice? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sloppy editing. :) Fixed. —tregoweth (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, useless without any indication of which songs are original. Gazpacho 17:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
seems like the aim of this page is to advertise the company Zephyr2k 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this really does read as a very brief advert. Nigel (Talk) 13:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, spam Cynical 21:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably hoax article. Full explanation on the article's talk page (Talk:Jean-Pierre Deveraux). In the last 20 minutes the editor, an (his?) IP, and another account have been playing games with the article, removing the cleanup tags I've added, blanking it, then restoring the content, and blanking again once I re-add the tags. Giving it the full AfD to settle the matter. No evidence to back any claims made in the article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable at best. The cited sources do not support the text of the article. The person is described as a lawyer living in California, yet nobody by this name is admitted to the State Bar of California (search here). And the diacritical marks shown on the person's full name don't appear to be consistent with French orthography. --Metropolitan90 04:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article's creator (Knowitallexclusive - talk - contribs) also tried to add the same name to the List of billionaires (2004) page twice [1] [2]. The list of billionaires page uses Forbes as a source for on which Jean-Pierre Deveraux does not exist. User also tried to add the article The Deveraux Family which was speedy deleted. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax, unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 11:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per above, likely hoax. The spelling of the name Deveraǚx given in the article, with its unusual diacritical, would be unconventional in French. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverified likely hoax.--Isotope23 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and give appropriate vandalism warnings. Cynical 21:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not only a hoax, but a rather dull and incredibly badly spelled one. Robertissimo 02:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wp:not Eyui 03:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for crystal balling. If Connemara doesn't already have a mention of its potential bid, it might be a useful inclusion there (although I'll leave a decision about including a sentence of speculation backed up by a not-entirely-seriously-written website up to someone else). BigHaz 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. »ctails!« =hello?= 04:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, recreate in some years. Punkmorten 08:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Connemara! The futures market in snow has just exploded at the news. Dlyons493 Talk 11:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above Subwayguy 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until there is a bidding process or something to write about. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Cynical 22:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until there's something more substantial. In the unlikely event of it being kept, move to 2026 Winter Olympics as per all similar articles. I strongly suspect hoax, though. Connemara's hardly the winter playground of Western Europe. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete —Khoikhoi 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete way too soon to have an article like that... --Hectorian 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Premature. (Wasn't this already AFD'd a few weeks ago?) 23skidoo 01:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, way too far ahead. Perhaps later. --Terence Ong (T | C) 03:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now. Prolog 20:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam Eyui 03:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability is asserted whatsoever, and it reads like an advertisement. But did we really need to bring this to afd? A prod tag would've done the trick, in my opinion. Picaroon9288•talk 04:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Advert Nigel (Talk) 13:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM - Blood red sandman 15:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See prior AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funkitron
- non-notable company Eyui 03:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Wickethewok 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE Do not delete. This is one of the major publishers of casual games on the internet. Scrabble was one of the first licensed games to be made into a casual game download. Scrabble Blast is one of the top played games on MSN. Poker Superstars is the top texas hold 'em game on the download sites. Slingo Deluxe is one of the top selling games in the download market. Dave635
- Comment Dave365 is the creator of the page in question. Sparsefarce 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not as per nom, but because the article seems to be more of an advertisement for this company. --Dennis The TIger 05:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Yes. It either needs to be rewritten or deleted. Certainly reads like advertisement.- ResurgamII 12:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been rewritten and added to. Dave635 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article's writing style follows convention found in other companies in space: Silver_Creek_Entertainment PopCap_GamesDave635 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interview with Founder on Gamezebo - top casual game site: [3]Dave635 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is similar to other companies in the space. Silver_Creek_Entertainment PopCap_Games
A few examples of top selling game status of Funkitron games Poker Superstars: [4] Scrabble: [5] Scrabble Blast: [6] Scrabble, Slingo: [7] Poker Superstars Top Favorite: [8]
One of the top companies in the space and sponsor of Casuality (top convention in space) [9]
Other places on the net that list funkitron: [12] [13]
Dave635 11:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Same article as the one previously deleted [14], plus two sentences. This is not a rewrite. ~ trialsanderrors 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Dave635, you are right to defend yourself, but it would be better form to place the comments in line with people's suggestions to delete. Placing this up top is a bit cluttersome. --Dennis The TIger 04:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I slapped a speedy deletion tag on it. --Peephole 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Article was deleted sometime today. Time to archive this discussion. --Dennis The TIger 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable websites Eyui 03:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable/third party sources. Wickethewok 13:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - 3rd party sources include 2 of the biggest business magazines in Australia. References given in article. Actual publication material is held under copyright by the respecive magazines and cannot be reproduced without permission, but can be given as proof of reliability upon request Neverlosty 03:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the site is significant enough to warrant an entry, surely. Add to that the 3rd party sources mentioned above as well as being awarded a government grant. Littlegrasshoppa 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New Note
I am not quite sure how wikipedia works, but from my breif reading on the policies, wouldn't the following awards and accolades be significant to warrant representation? For example, there are a number of independent sources that have recognised this as being significant (e.g. the Australian Government, business magazines, prominent competitions). I would think that receiving a governement grant and being recognised as one of the "top 10 coolest comapanies" in all of Australia (by a respected source) would be something that would be remembered in the future. Also that fact that there is over 150,000 members from over 140 countries is significant.
Awards and Accolades
- On the 20th of March 2006, SwapAce.com was awarded a grant by the Australian Federal Government (a COMET grant through AusIndustry). [1]
- In August of 2006, SwapAce.com was awarded the prestigious title of being one of the "Top 10 Cool Companies" by Australian Anthill magazine. [2]
- In November 2005, SwapAce.com was placed as a finalist in the Secrets of Australian IT Innovation Competition. [3]
- In July of 2006, SwapAce.com was recognised as part of an elite group of successful e-entrepreneurs by MyBusiness magazine.[4]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. Google brings up nothing related. Crystallina 03:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The article doesn't seem to have done a good job defining it, which seriously challenges its notability. BigHaz 03:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable neologism, nonsense. JIP | Talk 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism and original research. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOT a list of things made up one day. Resolute 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:OR. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 05:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Deleted*snicker*--ZayZayEM 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I had flagged prod. Samw 16:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO and man, if this is the kind of unoriginal insult Gen Y is coming up with, I pity the fools.--Isotope23 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NFT, WP:NEO. --Terence Ong (T | C) 03:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR, NEO. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WTF? this should be speedied, as it has less than no reason to exist. In fact, the article's creator is a Loser-fucker.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article claims that the subject is an internationally known DJ who plays in Europe and North America. One would think that such a high-profile DJ would have some sort of reliable sources talking about him. Well, a search came up with a total of 260 Google hits, only 18 of which showed outside of the "similar articles" selection. [15] These articles are MySpace pages, the artist's websites, and listings of DJs, as well as a couple of articles in (apparently) German that don't seem to be of substance. Thus, I feel that verification is lacking for this article. Looking at WP:MUSIC, about the only guideline that might be met would be the appearances in North America and Europe - but again, there are no reliable sources that I've managed to turn up referring to them. So, again, I don't believe the artist meets the guidelines at all, despite the claims of notability in the article itself. Finally, the editor who has done most of the work on this article is Most Wanted Club - which happens to be the name of the subject's business. Thus I smell an advertisement attempt, and at very least a failure of vanity guidelines. Delete unless someone can magic up some sources proving anything in it. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"This article claims that the subject is an internationally known DJ who plays in Europe and North America."
THE ARTICLE DOES NOT CLAIM THIS !!! The only point the article refers to is that DJ SAY-G is booked in several countries. This does not mean that he (or whoever worte this text) claims to be internationally FAMOUS or KNOWN all over.
" 260 Google"
My research resulted in more results. However, this again does not deny any fact of the text given. As long as I understand the text, there is no phrase saying DJ SAY-G rules the Google Hits, nore doe sit represent his networking among international club promoters.
"appearances in North America and Europe - but again, there are no reliable sources that I've managed to turn up referring to them"
I don't know the company, but I think you can request a list of club references from Most Wanted Club Ent. with RELIABLE sources, such as telephone numbers to call and ask...
"User Name"
>>> this really lacks proof...anybody can choose any name to edit !!! Imagine you were a representative of the company and somebody judges you because of somebody chose your name.
" Thus I smell an advertisement attempt"
I don't see any advertisement attempt. It is an infomative text.
FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW, IT'S A OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO !!!
NO NEED TO DELETE !!!
James Nickels — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Nickels (talk • contribs) - this editor has two edits, one here and one to the article being considered. I've refactored comments to move them below the initial deletion reason and eliminate an unnecessary header. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The bottom line here is that there's no proof anywhere that we're being informed about a notable individual as against someone who'd like to be notable. It may not be entirely an ad, but it's not the biography of a notable individual, either, and that's what trumps all. BigHaz 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - oh, and for the record a randomly-selected sample of the German sources don't add anything much to what we're dealing with here, so we don't seem to be dealing with someone astronomically famous in the non-Aglophone world but totally unknown within it (just in case anyone's worried). BigHaz 05:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was indeed wondering about that, but the awful Google translation of a couple pages suggested the same thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Urgh, Google translations. You've got my sympathy on that one, you really do. BigHaz 05:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was indeed wondering about that, but the awful Google translation of a couple pages suggested the same thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BigHaz. Smells like vanity. Resolute 05:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I coincidentially read this page:
Are you people, who are critisizing really into Hip Hop? Do you really know the industry?
Be conscious...go ask yourself if you are a person, who really knows the DJ industry or a person who is good in Google-research?
If so, go delete every DJ here, who has less than 500 Google entries (or you as an expert should tell the number)...
"not to be dealing with someone astronomically famous" >>> If so, go delete the 10 % of Wikipedia people !!!
I agree: there is nothing wrong with the text. NO DELETION !
PLEASE DO NOT OVERESTIMATE YOUR RESEARCH TALENT and I agree: ASK FOR SOURCES from the agency....and see his website for International bookings...
I ask myself if the artist even knows about all this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.96.161.43 (talk • contribs) - IP has exclusively edited the article in question. And removed the AfD tag from the article earlier. Coincidental! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Go read the guidelines that I pointed out in the nomination. Sources, in this case, refer to reliable sources - magazines, newspapers, etc., not the company involved. It's the burden of the article editors to prove notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to the IP (over and above Tony Fox's suggestion), a couple of minor points. It sounds from your comments that you believe that Wikipedia exists to document each and every DJ in the world. We don't. We exist to document each and every DJ (or singer, ski jumper, politician, doctor etc etc) who is actually notable. There is no indication on this DJ's article or on Google that he is in fact notable. If there are other DJs listed on Wikipedia who are not notable, then they stand a high chance of being deleted as well - the fact that they're here at the moment doesn't mean that they should be, it just means that nobody's put them up for deletion yet. What I said about "dealing with someone astronomically famous" was because of the fact that some of the pages which Google threw up as results were in German. Therefore, one might wonder if DJ SAY-G was perhaps very famous in Germany but not in the rest of the world (yes, this does happen every now and then, someone very famous in one country is nominated for deletion because he/she doesn't appear famous to someone in another country). However, because I speak German, I was able to read the pages in German and determine that not only is he not notable in English, neither is he notable in German. BigHaz 07:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom (no reliable sources/WP:V). Looks like vanity/spam as well.Wickethewok 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator's research and reasoning. To the anon: impassioned pleas (with ALL CAPS and exclamation points!!!) to keep an article rarely work, and indeed can often backfire. Please keep this in mind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks reliable sources WilyD 14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted Vanity.--ZayZayEM 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 'tis but vanity Marcus22 17:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom --RMHED 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Oy -- that photo. Robertissimo 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the very convincing arguments inadvertantly being made by the original author. A DJ, of all people, who doesn't show up on Google a mere 500 times—a weekend DJ I went out with once three years ago has 860 hits, and she's NN—should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for people to achieve notability. Comments along the lines of "ask him, ask his agent" miss the point. If he were notable, we wouldn't need to ask his own flack about him. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Pork product - no more, no less. Terminate with eXtreme Prejudice. Cain Mosni 14:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sourcing, no reviews, no notability TerriersFan 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable sources given, found. Doesn't sound like a very fun game either... Wickethewok 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--ZayZayEM 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Keep but some strong arguments for delete so a future relisting is a distinct possibility depending on other factors relating to the character. Please note this article has been moved to Steel Chambers while the AfD was in progress.Tyrenius 21:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The character is not notable separately from the main Who Wants to Be a Superhero? article. There's nothing to the article that isn't already covered in the show's article. If the character should feature in either the comic or the movie based on the series then the article can be recreated but for now the article should be deleted. Otto4711 04:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the dark enforcer was notable in his own right just as every characher from the show not just feedback the winner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.25.96 (talk • contribs)
- Delete - Not notable enough for an article. A brief mention in the main article is all that is needed imo. Wickethewok 13:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - TV title page is large enough that it does not warrant the inclusion of this article, as this article can stand alone. notable enough subject.--ZayZayEM 15:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Not only a character on the TV show, but also a villian in Feedback's comic.--Unopeneddoor 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-The character stands out from the others because he was the only one who, even after being eliminated, remained on the series. He is probably going to be featured in Feedback's comic book, and therefore, he is noteable. Also, Steel Chambers' created Iron Enforcer, but Stan Lee helped to come up with the idea off Dark Enforcer...therefore, he is a character in the Marvel Comics Universe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colorblinddj (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - The character is not part of the Marvel Universe. If the character even appears in the Feedback comic, something that's far from a settled question and thus irrelevant to the character's notability, he would be part of the Dark Horse universe. Otto4711 21:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Wickethewok.-Kmaguir1 08:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep He was featured in both trailers of the superheroes, therefore it shows he is a main character.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.150.206 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Assuming he gets mentioned in the TV show and Feedback's comic he is probably notable. Otherwise, I'm not certain that's the case.PaleAqua 21:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, even probably noteworthy outside of the show. Regardless, reality contestants? Absolutely worth having articles, all of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Hate to be a tool and down on someone else's article, but this person is not notible enough for an article. Being on a reality show, especially Who Wants to be a Superhero? does not yield the notibility for an article. Further, he is not a comics villain. The user(s) who made his article simply added the SHB incorrectly. Note that he's classified as a DC comics character. This is likely an error based on the similarity between the villain color and DC's color. (Don't get me started on how wrong that similarity is.) He was in the fake—I say, FAKE!—trailers because they didn't have anyone else to use. Viewers will note the other "villains" "problems" were "Chickman-man" (a giant baby chick) a fake asteroid and several pieces of footage ripped from other sci fi originals. These weren't perspective trailers for their possible sci fi films by any means. Finally, he appeared in his non-villainous costume at the end to congratulate Feedback. Feedback himself doesn't consider him his enemy. Bottomline, all we need is one article for the winner, who is and will be notible. That's not POV, either. These characters aren't even described in the reality show article. Honestly...I hate to say it, but if I've seen fancruft, this is it. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep-there is talk online that he is gonna be in the movie, so keep it—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.143.85 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: "Talk online"? Where? A forum. Bah to that. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I suggest Feedback has his own page, and all the rest get one "Who Want to be a Superhero? Characters" page. Ace ofspade 20:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Steel Chamber's MySpace has made hints about the movie.
- MySpace a credible source? DrWho42 23:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Steel Chambers runs the MySpace.
- Delete--Page about an minor aspect of a reality show actor; would be more purposeful to make a page for the actor, in my opinion. -Shannernanner 07:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Who Wants to Be a Superhero?. Someone will just recreate it if you delete it. But yeah, it's not even slightly noteworthy, and can all be summarised in the main article in a line or two. At the moment this is just a plot summary for a reality TV show. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - He was the second biggest if not the most important character on the Who wants to be a Superhero? show and is most likely to appear in the comic and movie b/c all heros need a supervillain and Stan personally handpicked this man to be that supervillain.
- Comment: New posts at the bottom, okay? Also, it was performance on a reality show. They hired actors as prisons, too. You think they'll call Dot back and draw her into ther comic? Gees. I'm sorry for 'tude here, guys, but am I the only realist around? How old are you people? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I withdraw the nomination, since it's clear that the fanboys outnumber the rationalists. Otto4711 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Damn. Well, we can always resubmit when their interest dies down. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No one's explained why his significance to the show makes him notable. The original proposal still stands despite those arguments, doesn't it? It's not a vote. ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Good point. He's still just a fictional persona developed specifically for a reality show. There's no solid confirmation he'll be appearing outside that format and, if anything, his finally appearance without the villain costume could imply that they're actually done with him. Whatever the result, I'm game for seeing this through. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No one's explained why his significance to the show makes him notable. The original proposal still stands despite those arguments, doesn't it? It's not a vote. ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of [16]. Wikipedia is not a speech repository. Besides, the copyright is troubling; it's licensed as noncommercial, which is incompatible with GFDL. Finally, WP:NOR, and non-notable. Melchoir 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, blatant copyvio. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's a candidate for {{db-copyvio}}. And I'd rather not take it to Copyright Problems, because the author might just change the license. Let's just say it doesn't belong here from the start. Melchoir 04:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research (and a speech, which counts as being an essay and exceptionally difficult to NPOV-ise). BigHaz 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there does seem to be some valid content in here but anything worthwhile could be incorporated in current pages. Nigel (Talk) 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- shouldn't notable disorders have their own pages, and even a category?--ZayZayEM 15:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Intersexuality covers several. Melchoir 15:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete source dump. Gazpacho 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Night Gyr, but also NN, opinion not fact, "etc. etc. etc." (as per Yul Brynner)... Cain Mosni 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedy delete A7.--Andeh 10:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page on non-notable college student Dsreyn 04:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete nn-bio. Danny Lilithborne 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sppedy delete per Danny Lilithborne. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sppedy/Speedy delete per Danny Lilithborne. Sens08 07:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Merge into Duke Nukem 3D. BaseballBaby 05:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just regurgitated information that was copied from the main Duke Nukem 3D article. The subject in question doesn't need its own article, the content isn't unique, and the article is orphaned on top of it. Therefore, it should be deleted. TerminX 04:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 09:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Altair 18:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn game mod. Recury 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back into Duke Nukem 3D Cynical 22:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back Nothing wrong with this in principle, btu there isn't enough content to justify a split. Ace of Sevens 07:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it isn't verifiable and including that much info in the main article on it would be poor balance anyway. Recury 14:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into appropriate Duke Nukem article --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Ace of Sevens. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 03:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Don't seem to be any third party sources. Wickethewok 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SATS is fully accredited by South African government.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, all WP:V information on this group is already in List of collegiate a cappella groups and there is thus nothing to merge. --- Deville (Talk) 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claim to notability is: "They achieved minor internet fame when a video of them performing a medley of Nintendo theme music was released." No meaningful media coverage, no competitions, nothing. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, nothing WP:V to merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups --- Deville (Talk) 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. Best claim to notability is a Valentines Day gig at their own University. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. Only out of campus claim to notability is an alleged sideshow performance an ESPN dunk contest. Page primarily contains inside jokes and an appeal for prospective members to join. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. BigHaz 05:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Some of Wash U's acappella groups are notable, but not this one. Carom 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been cleaned up and should no longer be marked for deletion.
- The cleanup is an improvement but doesn't address the notability concerns. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Redirected to Tufts University, as this group is not notable enough by the standards of WP:Music to have an independent article. (aeropagitica) 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. Besides some alleged performances at various Synagogues and Hebrew Schools, the groups only claim to notability is a "Contemporary A Cappella Recording Award, which appears neither prestigious or notable.savidan(talk) (e@) 05:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Flying Jazz 23:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:MUSIC. I think the CARA award is a pretty major music award for its genre. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sudenly a group wins "best mixed song" at some awards show no one has ever heard of and they are the new black? savidan(talk) (e@) 06:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Define "Some awards show," and show what it means in the context of their genre/style, and we'll talk. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One reason that an editor might call the CARA "some awards show no one has ever heard of" is that there is not a Wikipedia article for it and it is not mentioned once in the A cappella or Contemporary a cappella articles. Based on the number of a cappella groups submitted as articles to Wikipedia and the strong desire among people associated with these groups to get free publicity, I think we need more notability than winning one questionably notable award one year. Flying Jazz 11:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a reasonable disagreement, I suppose. I understand the desire to curb the self-promotion, I'm just thinking this is the only one of the bloc that was nominated that seems logical to include. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One reason that an editor might call the CARA "some awards show no one has ever heard of" is that there is not a Wikipedia article for it and it is not mentioned once in the A cappella or Contemporary a cappella articles. Based on the number of a cappella groups submitted as articles to Wikipedia and the strong desire among people associated with these groups to get free publicity, I think we need more notability than winning one questionably notable award one year. Flying Jazz 11:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Define "Some awards show," and show what it means in the context of their genre/style, and we'll talk. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sudenly a group wins "best mixed song" at some awards show no one has ever heard of and they are the new black? savidan(talk) (e@) 06:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced.Redirect to Tufts University (where they're already listed.) I find 9 newshits, 2 are "Shir Appeal appears at ...",, 7 are passing mentions. None establish the claims made in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 07:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted due to not enough votes Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Trialsanderrors as there is no evidence of notability. GRBerry 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Trialsanderrors. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC, but, more importantly, contents cannot be verified since no sources per WP:V. --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect --Peta 05:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for a non-notable product line. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 06:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as lacks independent press coverage or other evidence of independent verifiability. Stephen B Streater 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Merge into [[Carnegie Mellon University student organizations. BaseballBaby 06:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claim to notability is a planned 10th anniversary.savidan(talk) (e@)
- Delete and merge into Carnegie Mellon University student organizations. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, no reason to delete, a redirect will do. ~ trialsanderrors 03:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Carnegie Mellon University student organizations (where it already has a listing). Insufficiently notable for its own article (per WP:MUSIC) and no reliable, third-party sources (per WP:V). --Satori Son 00:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claim to notability is having recieved guidance from a member of the marginally-notable King's Singers.savidan(talk) (e@) 05:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. No third party reliable sources of any note found on this either. Wickethewok 13:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when are the King's Singers "marginally-notable?" They're probably the most famous classical a cappella ensemble in the United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HollyWeis (talk • contribs) .
- That comment would be more convincing if a citation or link to an independent reliable source was added to the article, or alternatively here. GRBerry 02:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence or assertion of meeting any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC and no links to any independent reliable sources. GRBerry 02:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedy deleted Thryduulf 08:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page of non-notable person. Zero Google hits. Speedy deleted repeatedly and repeatedly brought back, so I'm bringing it here for some permanance. Delete and Protect from Recreation is my vote. Danny Lilithborne 05:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated under this AfD:
-
- Not the above is now a redirect to the Anders Kravis page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both, particularly the second one with the middle initial he apparently doesn't have. BigHaz 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and protect.TheRingess 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, hoax and nonsense, protect the page, and ban the user --ArmadilloFromHell 05:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, as info already in merge target. JPD (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. Claim to notability is a dubious claiam that they are "pushing the boundaries of contemporary a-cappella music." savidan(talk) (e@) 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Merge, if such an AfD resolution exists. otherwise, Delete - Blood red sandman 15:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:BAND. No sources per WP:V. (Entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Merge/redirect. Xoloz 00:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability outside a several performances at their own Vanderbilt University. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have now added, the group is quite notable and has been contacted by many other groups across the country and the world. The Oxford Alternotives performed a tour in the U.S. and chose Vandy Taal as an a cappella group to perform with. Even though the Alternotives only sing Western music, they passed on the chance to perform with Vanderbilt's other a cappella groups and instead chose Vandy Taal. Other universities have also contacted the group, but because of financial and scheduling reasons beyond the control of Vandy Taal, the group is currently unable to travel for performances while maintaining enough money to record its songs. However, the group is currently working for an increased budget from Vanderbilt University and hopes to attain the financial means to travel off campus for performances. Docatur 23:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Despite Docatur's claims, none of this is backed up in reliable sources. Mangojuicetalk 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, info already at merge target. JPD (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claim to notability is hosting a concert for other non-notable groups. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Flying Jazz 23:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Armon 16:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A7, Unremarkable person/vanity page - Subject is little more than a political candidate. Somnabot 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable. This is not a CSD A7 because it asserts notability. MER-C 08:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject just as notable as several other persons with Wikipedia articles, inluding Robert Arter and John W. Creighton, Jr., if for nothing else than their terms as appointed aides to the Secretary of the Army. Stampedem 09:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i agree that this is set up as a vanity page and should be completely rewritten without such bias; however, i am not convinced that he doesn't "deserve" a wikipedia entry given his appointments and political clout.Desert boy 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I dislike pages created because someone is a candidate, because (until they win) they're usually of minor interest and frequently they become targets of people with an agenda. I think it's best for the project to delete such pages in general, and this one in particular. Friday (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete When a candidate for political office achieves that office, they have a good likelihood of being sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Until that time... nn. Marcus22 17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dances around the question of whether or not he's the Republican nominee, doesn't it? JCScaliger 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. wikipediatrix 14:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuicetalk 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability other than performing 1-3 concerts on their own campus per semester. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:BAND. No sources per WP:V. (Entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedy deleted Thryduulf 08:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability other than a "high standard of musical excellence." savidan(talk) (e@) 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - CSD A7. Playing at a "high standard of musical excellence" isn't an assertion of notability at all. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Admittedly, by strict tally, this argument is on the verge of being "no consensus." Considering that the keep arguments fail to engage on matters of policy (deferring instead to personal beliefs regarding the site's quality), the strength of argument weighs in favoring of deletion. The complete lack of reliable sources decides the matter; but, I will happily userfy for anyone willing to search out such reliable sources. Xoloz 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article features no serious claim to (or proof for) notability for this website as required by WP:WEB. Although it has an Alexa ranking of 20,814, it does not appear to have any noteworthy Google coverage (516 hits, mostly from porn sites). Contested prod. Sandstein 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is one of the very few nice cartoon porn sites. Most of them are forgettable rubbish. JIP | Talk 09:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What bearing does this assertion have on the site's notability per WP:WEB? As far as I know, we do not judge our articles based on the merits of the subject, but on its notability. Sandstein 11:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen many other, less professional cartoon porn sites steal images from WWOEC. WWOEC seems to be one of the few cartoon porn sites that creates porn pictures instead of simply propagating them. JIP | Talk 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wonderful, I'm sure, but that still isn't a notability criterium per WP:WEB - and do you happen to have any reliable sources for your assertions? Sandstein 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen many other, less professional cartoon porn sites steal images from WWOEC. WWOEC seems to be one of the few cartoon porn sites that creates porn pictures instead of simply propagating them. JIP | Talk 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I think WWOEC has some notability in certain circles. Absolutely not mine. Not that there's anything wrong with it (actually some parts of WWOEC I think are actually pretty wrong - but its still a bit notable).--ZayZayEM 14:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, everything has "some notability in certain circles", if the circles are sufficiently narrow. We're looking for notability per WP:WEB, however, backed up by reliable sources and not by unsourced assertions. Sandstein 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems notable. Google != WP deletion policy Cynical 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment these reasons being listed for keeping the article are not good. It really shouldn't be kept unless someone can find reliable sources showing that it meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. I couldn't find any in a quick google search, perhaps someone else can. --Xyzzyplugh 09:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB, and, more importantly, no "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V. Also, reads somewhat like WP:ADVERT. --Satori Son 15:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This AfD should be closed already. I would close it myself as "no consensus", but I have vested interest in the AfD myself, as a fan of WWOEC's art (well, some of it). JIP | Talk 17:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose relisting it, as there has been little policy-based discussion so far. Sandstein 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JIP | Talk 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Satori Son. No reliable sources are present to establish any notability. Without sources it fails WP:WEB, but I would be happy to change my opinion if some sources are provided. DrunkenSmurf 20:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Sandstein. Neither notable nor verifiable. Valrith 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google gets alot of hits and the simple size of the community and the fact that it generates art work seems to make it notable for to me. It needs clean up but it doesn't need to get deleted. A solution could be to merge parts of the article and a link into an "erotic cartoons" type article if an appropriate one can be found. NeoFreak 20:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem is although it may seem notable, Wikipedia articles require sources to validate those claims. If you found some reliable sources that establish notability for this site from the google hits you are talking about, please add them. Again, I would be happy to change my opinion if you do that. DrunkenSmurf 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well Google bases its hits ranking off the number of webpages that link to the site which is why Google is often used as a yardstick of sorts to determine Notability. Like I said the sheer number of those hits and the number of participating artists is reason enough for me. Like I said though it's just my opinion. I'll see what I can't do to find some other legit sources to cite to back it up some more. NeoFreak 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB. It does seem fairly popular, but I don't see any reliable third-party coverage that we could verifably base an encyclopedia article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "The primary criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Regardless of its supposed popularity, it shows no real evidence of that. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and Mr. Lefty. If we have nothing to make an article out of, we have no article. William Pietri 23:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 05:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claims to notability (other than their name) are competing in (but not winning) the ICCA and the dubious and unreferenced claim that they are the only group that performs original material. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(The claim, more accurately, is that they perform only original material, i.e. they write everything they perform. This is very different claim from the one you state, Savidan. Please read the article carefully before trying to make a decision, guys.)
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (Merge is really a Keep since it allows the author to recreate). Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete long and reasonably well-written article, but nn regardless Paul 20:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Armon 16:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstaining since as an alumnus I am quite biased, but at least verifying the claim of being the only collegiate group performing all-original a cappella music. See below. (Not a registered Wikipedia user) 19:18, 8 September 2006 UTC
The people responding are experts who would know the state of the a cappella world. They are the president of the Contempory A Cappella Society of America, the founder of Mainely A Cappella, and the executive director of the ICCA competition respectively:
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:16:04 -0700 From: Deke Sharon <deke@totalvocal.com> To: Don Gooding <don@a-cappella.com> Cc: Amanda Grish <agrish@varsityvocals.com>, Michael Barrientos <mbarrien@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> Subject: Re: Any college a cappella groups that perform all-original music? Mike, Other than Stanford Fleet Street's recent album of all original music (which I think was a one-time project, not a permanent direction), I know of nothing in your all-original league. I think you're safe calling yourselves the first and only all-original collegiate a cappella group. Congrats! On Sep 8, 2006, at 6:08 AM, Don Gooding wrote: > Hi Mike- > > I concur with Amanda - I don't know of any others. But Deke would > indeed be the guy who'd know, as he's the biggest promoter of contemporary > a cappella groups doing originals. > > At 12:24 AM 9/8/2006, Amanda Grish wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > There are none that I know of personally. Have you talked to Don Gooding or > > Deke Sharon? They would be your best resource. Don Gooding is "friends" with > > many a cappella groups on My Space, so he might have a more recent idea. > > Don? > > > > Good luck Mike. Hope we'll be hearing from Noteworthy this year! > > > > Amanda > > > > On 9/7/06 6:21 PM, "Michael Barrientos" <mbarrien@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote: > > > > > I'm an alumnus of the UC Berkeley a cappella group Noteworthy. > > > <http://ucchoral.berkeley.edu/ucchoral/nworthy>. The group is trying to > > > check if the claim is true that they are currently the only a college a > > > cappella group that performs only original music without any covers. I > > > figured BOCA would have the best chance of knowing of any other college > > > groups that exist that do not perform covers of songs. > > > > > > To the best of your knowledge, is there any other collegiate group that > > > you have run into that is performing only their own original music, past > > > or present? If you cannot answer this question, do you know of other > > > resources who would know if this is true or not? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > -- > > > Mike Barrientos - mbarrien@cal.berkeley.edu > > > > > > > ___________________________ > > Amanda Grish > > Varsity Vocals > > ICCA Executive Director > > ICHSA Executive Director
I might also argue in this case that Noteworthy may satisfy the following guidelines of WP:MUSIC:
- Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. (To date, Noteworthy has written and performed 32 original songs. Whether a cappella counts as a notable genre is up for someone to argue.)
- Has won or placed in a major music competition. (Noteworthy came in 3rd in their competition, and not every group even makes it into the ICCA competition. Whether the ICCA quarter finals qualify as a major music competition is up for someone to argue.)
Thank you for going out of your way to attempt to verify the "all-original" claim. However, private email correspondences do not meet the verifiability standards of Wikipedia. As for the composing songs, that criteria is in the "other" category, i.e. not a criteria for a musical group persay.
The claim about about reaching the "ICCA quarter finals" is not contained in the article (or sourced online as far as I can tell). I would argue that this does not meet that requirement anyway, as the ICCA contains many, many categories of awards, and 8 different groups would reach quarterfinals in each. I don't think that is sufficient. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What falls under the "other" category? Some may argue that a cappella falls "outside of mass media traditions".
If a local newspaper or school newspaper were to make a mention of the all-original claim (I'd have to research, but I'm sure any article on Noteworthy would have mentioned this), would that qualify for verifiability? Once sourced properly, would the only all-original collegiate group be enough to make the group "Noteworthy" enough? (pun fully intended)
As for sourcing the quarter finals thing (which I'll put in the main article if it's kept): http://www.varsityvocals.com/icca/results.shtml - 2006 quarter finals results, West Region, University of Oregon If quarter finals aren't enough.... I guess they'll just have to make it further in this year's ICCAs. :-) (The same guy as before) 12.191.193.147 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, info already at merge target. JPD (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability other than its alleged "integration of top-notch musicianship and between-songs sketch comedy." savidan(talk) (e@) 05:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (Merge is really a Keep since it allows the author to recreate). Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Armon 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (Entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have deleted this article under the WP:CSD criterion A7. Regards —Encephalon 10:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability other than some low-profile concerts in their hometown. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Wikibout-Talk to me! 04:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (Merge is really a Keep since it allows the author to recreate). Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Armon 16:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, infor already at merge target. JPD (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability beyond their own campus. First nomination was not decided on notability, but was the result of a namespace dispute with other groups of the same name. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (Merge is really a Keep since it allows the author to recreate). Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Armon 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (Entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuicetalk 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability outside of their campus, except for some alleged low-key tours to other colleges. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This Entry I feel this is a valid entry: 1. I have seen many other entries for college a cappella groups that have developed into useful, well-written entries and I see no reason why the Gargoyles entry will not follow suite. 2. The Gargoyles are an a cappella group at Oxford University, one of the top academic institutions in the world, and I would argue that many outside of the Oxford community are indeed concerned with organizations formed within the context of such an important institution. 3. Merely listing the Gargoyles under the list of collegiate a cappella groups would not allow for much background information to be included such as the group's musical style, history, and other general facts. --68.193.181.153 11:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (Merge is really a Keep since it allows the author to recreate). Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This Entry I agree that this is a valid entry fitting many of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in its own right. This UK-based group has undertaken two substantial tours to the US, when it visited several major universities, and during one of which it performed on national television (NBC Today programme). It was the first jazz a cappella group formed at Oxford University, and one of the first of its kind in the UK as a whole. As such it has been at the forefront of UK collegiate a cappella, both at home and abroad. Furthermore, in the UK the Gargoyles have appeared on local television and radio on many occasions, and been reviewed in the press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.142 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 September 2006
- Comment: If what you say is true, you really need to cite sources either here or in the article. The problems is that all articles are required to have "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per Wikipedia:Verifiability official policy, and this article does not have any. Thanks. --Satori Son 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article does not assert sufficient notability, and its contents are not verified by third-party sources. Research on my part failed to locate any reputable sources, and thus far none have been produced here. I will revise my opinion if and when that occurs, otherwise deletion is warranted. --Satori Son 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Note that unlike BlueValour says, this would actually discourage recreation more than removal of the article. Mangojuicetalk 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability outside of their campus except for generic low-profile touring. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (Merge is really a Keep since it allows the author to recreate). Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I find the nominator's and User:Satori Son's comments compelling. This AFD is hereby closed and the associated page deleted. Regards —Encephalon 10:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About a not-notable animated television pilot. "Even though the pilot tested highly with focus groups it was not picked up as a regular series." Originally PRODDED. Prod removed without comment by User:Lesserredpanda. <200 Google hits, not all about subject. Most are about, well cat food, Nancy Reagan and Kitty Kelly. :) Dlohcierekim 05:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the cockamamie BS listed on this site and you want to remove a real animated short created by Disney? One that exists on imdb and links to actors, writers and directors on this very site? Whatever.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.34.244.66 (talk • contribs) :) Dlohcierekim 12:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I nominated for AfD an article about a not notable pilot that was never picked up by anyone. :) Dlohcierekim 12:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article has been recreated at Disney's Kitty's Dish. :) Dlohcierekim 14:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Listed for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney's Kitty's Dish :) Dlohcierekim 14:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Unproduced pilots are usually not notable. But feel free to nominate the cockamamie BS. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficiently notable and lack of third-party sources per WP:V (the only source is IMDB, which has less stringent publishing requirements than Wikipedia's). For example, how are we to verify "the pilot tested highly with focus groups"? Based on the author's contributions here and here, it also seems like WP:VANITY. --Satori Son 12:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article reads like a travel guide, and Wikipedia articles are not travel guides. Kyra 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Lackawaxen which already has a good article. Current article is just an ad. Dlyons493 Talk 11:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of Information without Malice
This Masthope page contains information about a community within the geographic boundries of Lackawaxen Township and is relevent to information about Lackawaxen which was not included in the original web site article. It adds knowledge about the geographic features and amenities of Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania.
Ski Big Bear is important to the economy and tourism of the region. Furthermore the article adds other relevant information about the region not discussed in the original article such as the Lincoln flag at Milford. It has value as an addition to the original article not considered by the original author. It does not in any way detract from the original article. It adds to the wealth of information. It is not written as an ad for Masthope. If need be the Masthope article can be re-written in order to bring it more in line with the standards of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snake Oil Sam (talk • contribs)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 06:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advert / travel guide stuff. Font vanity suggests a copyvio. -- RHaworth 10:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - reads like an advertisement and may well have been intended as one. Also uses non-standard mark-up and font. BTLizard 12:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advert. Danny Lilithborne 16:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and put what actual verifiable information can be salvaged from this ad in Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania. Snake Oil Sam, if it's not an ad, why was it written in Comic Sans? If it "adds to the wealth of information" about Lackawaxen, and sincerely wasn't meant to be an ad, the information can simply be put in that article.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Deed restricted commuinties are not notable. Wikipedia is not free advertising. :) Dlohcierekim 23:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was written in Comic Sans because I Snake Oil Sam like Comic Sans and like to publish in Comic Sans. I did not understand that it was a sin among the elite of Wikipedia to work in any other than the approved format. Please forgive me for my transgressions. I guess that I am just not up to speed within the cult of Wikipedia.
As far as putting information into the original article I thought that it was better to link to a separate article that I wrote rather than mess with the hard work of someone else. But what do I know I am new around here. Like I said before I can write it to fit your agenda if that would make a difference. Obviously I still have a lot to learn. Snake Oil Sam :-(
- Delete per Charles A. L. I'm sure there's some verifiable information that can be salvaged from this. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- - GIen 06:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I was going to speedy this however thought I would get some feedback first (so speedy tagged instead of deleting however creator has removed the tags twice - and no doubt would remove a prod). So here we are. No real notability shown in article, in fact it reads like a commercial. Look forward to others feedback - GIen 06:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not mean to delete tags. I was still editing the article and they must have gotten deleted when I pasted revised copies from my Word document. It is my first article and I'm still not exactly sure how this all works.
How can I make it sound less like a commercial? I am just explaining how the site and company works.
[user:Jennifercifuentes]
- Delete - As the nominator indicates, it does appear to be somewhat on the advertising side. I tagged it with a couple of tags asking for notability and sources to be added, but the tags were removed, twice; a Google search came up with this, but I couldn't see any outside sources referring to it. To the creator: what you need to do is review the policies I pointed out on the article talk page, focusing on verifiable, reliable sources, as well as meeting the website and company guidelines. If you do that, I'll gladly reconsider my vote. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The approach to Wiki is not helpful to their cause. Nigel (Talk) 13:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the concept of company-issued coupons as currency is interesting (see Canadian Tire Money), restaurant.com needs a few more reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine reviews, before it can get validity via WP:WEB. ColourBurst 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, needs reliable sources, does not meet WP:WEB criteria, advertsising. --Terence Ong (T | C) 03:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable church youth group. --Haakon 06:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable youth group/vanity. Wickethewok 13:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn —Khoikhoi 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity spam. Kill with a vengeance. EVula 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - socking is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable self-published book, seemingly based on a non-notable blog. The advert for the book linked on the page as a source doesn't even have a picture of the book, it has a mock-up of sorts. 'Delete. Mak (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP this is a notable award winning book as seen in MANY business magazines, Television, newspapers written by two award winning business coaches... the book is available at Barnes and Noble and other fine book sellers. This entry is exactly what wikipedia is all about?? Closermac 07:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Closermac[reply]
Keep ItDuh. its a well known book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Closermac (talk • contribs) - Note Second vote in a row from the same user, the author of the article, whose only edits outside this article are repeated attempt to add vanity entries for the book's author. Fan-1967 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an ad. Delete. GMcGath 13:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mak. Non-notable book, non-notable blog, obvious ad. Does the Buddha recommend sockpuppetry? Fan-1967 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per WP:VSCA. book which could not be found on Amazon is probably not notable. Ohconfucius 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I found a listing on Amazon here, but they don't have a copy (neither does B&N), only a third-party vendor. Sales rank is "None" meaning they've never sold a copy. Fan-1967 15:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--ZayZayEM 15:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have just reverted vandalism of this AFD by an anon IP. Seems some Buddhists are less Buddhist than others. Fan-1967 17:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have just removed comments by fan and GmcGath for reasons of slander and libel and obvious bigotry. attacks based upon personal religious beliefs do not belong here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.7.221 (talk • contribs)
- Comment They have been restored. Under no circumstances do you ever remove another person's comments. To actually change someone else's comments (as you did here) is the height of dishonesty. Fan-1967 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not to mention the dishonesty of removing my comment (which has been restored) and making false claims about the deleted comment. To put it bluntly, this sock puppet is resorting to smear tactics. GMcGath 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sadly, not the first time we have seen such tactics from someone claiming to sell enlightenment. Fan-1967 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I may not know all the proper techniques of wiki but you must be joking to think buddha in the boardroom by two award winning authors and a NY Times Best Selling author T. Harv Eker non-notable? You obviously don't know the business books. Just because I don't know albert camus doesn't mean I would delete his entry. Some of your personal comments show this is an obvious attack based on religious belief. This is no place for your racism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.91.82 (talk • contribs)
- Comment I have the greatest admiration for Buddhists and their faith. I also know that honesty is a guiding principle of that belief, which the editor in question clearly does not demonstrate. I thought my meaning was quite clear. Fan-1967 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the award that this book/the authors have received is from a fairly non-notable body, as far as I can tell, and even the ad/article doesn't claim that Eker was involved in writing the book, he just has some sort of hand in selling/marketing it. To accuse Fan of racism is just ridiculous. Please stop the sockpuppetry and trolling. Mak (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although the author may be notable, it is arguable whether every single pieces of his work is notable by association. If the author's book 'Secrets of the Millionaire Mind: Mastering the Inner Game of Wealth' was listed in AfD, I am certain it would fly past as a speedy keep. This one appears to be a mullet. Ohconfucius 07:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We seem to be losing focus here. If a heretofore undiscovered book by Buddha himself were presented as an advertising blurb as this one is, the article would have to be modified or deleted. Conversely, if the promoter of the book and article hadn't used obvious advertising, vanity links and slanderous attacks, no one would care nearly as much. GMcGath 11:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable book - DavidWBrooks 18:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (Not that it's relevant to the vote, but I wonder if this alleged scam artist from Nashua [17] is the same Keith MacConnell from Nashua?)[reply]
- Well, since the person who wrote the article keeps adding Keith MacConnell to the Nashua article, I'm guessing it is. Mak (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nashua's not a very big town. There could be two people by that name there, but it's not that common a name. Fan-1967 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Such an Irish name not common in a New England Mill Town?? You must be joking?? In the larger Eastern-Seaboard metropolitan areas, Irish Americans number over 44 million, making them the second largest ethnic group in the country. The Clan MacConnell or McConnell being among the largest of them..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.37.96 (talk • contribs)
- It's totally irrelevant to the merits of deleting the article, but just to close off the argument, there is only one MacConnell in the Nashua phone book, and it's not a Keith or K. GMcGath 12:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nashua's not a very big town. There could be two people by that name there, but it's not that common a name. Fan-1967 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete self-published book and while there is no accepted guideline for books, the claims that would set this above the run-of-the-mill self-published work are unsourced and unverifed. Our friendly neighborhood anon might want to try a bit of meditation...--Isotope23 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEPER and pretty obvious one at that as a very quick search on Google, yahoo, MSN and Other SE's return Tens of Thousands of entries associated with this book. Most notable associations are Tony Robbins, T. Harv Eker, The Napolean Hill Foundation, Zig Ziglar, The Associated Press, Trump University and others.
One of the awards shows to be a "Book of the Year" by Writer's Digest Other press associations are Fast Company (magazine), Business 2.0 Magazine, Success etc.. I also noticed that the paper mentioned above Telegraph of Nashua has a review and schedule of author appearances at Barnes and Noble, Borders Group and other Book Sellers and Hippo Press has several entries.
Doesn't appear to get more legit than this? I wonder if the reason for deletion is not the notabilty issue?? Appears to be motivated by character assasination or religious belief as this seems to have taken a nasty turn with personal insults. Based upon notabilty this is an obvious keeper. Sorry about the anon i'm at work and I'll sign in later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.37.96 (talk • contribs)
- Comments Let's take a few points in order: (1) As far as "tens of thousands" of entries, I find 639 total, about 50 unique. (2) I can't find any source that associates the book in any way with Robbins or Ziglar, so I have to wonder what that claim is based on. (3) It did not win "Book of the Year" as claimed. Writers Digest gave the book one of five Honorable Mentions in the category of self-published inspirational books. A book called Letters to Luke actually won in that category [18]. (4) Of the other claims above, the only one I can verify is Hippo Press, a free weekly paper in Nashua. Fan-1967 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hippo Press did review it. But there was never a review or story in the Nashua Telegraph, just a listing of the author as one of dozens signing at the local B&N (no other store) during a Salute to New Authors Day on April 30, which featured "more than 30" authors in a three-hour stretch. - DavidWBrooks 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP based on relevence and notability even 690 google references sounds pretty good to me! seems to be a few voting for the delete but taking a closer look it appears only a couple people working to rid this one with sockpuppets.. BTW and OS DavidWBrooks.. I'm a looooooong time telegraph subscriber and I read your stuff man.. I was actually turned on to wikipedia by the piece you did on it earlier this month.. Keep up the good work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.4.192 (talk • contribs)
- Additional Comment As I review this more It seems the people who want to delete argue "it's only listed at Barnes and Noble", It's only mentioned in this publication or that, It's only got 690 google references, it's only reviewed by this paper, the telegraph only mentions it for a writers signing at barnes and noble, it's only listed as a third party available on Amazon.. All these onlys add up to a pretty notable work. Far more notable than alot of entries on this site. You better carefully consider your actions as it is probable the next entry you add here will only be half as notable. It seems that the originator didn't realize the merit of this work but mistakes can be forgiven.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.91.82 (talk • contribs)
- Comment The Barnes and Noble web entry says the book is currently unavailable. GMcGath 22:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One of the attempts to alter existing comments last night came from 24.61.91.82, the same IP address as the above "Additional Comment". This sock puppet is clearly getting desperate. GMcGath 10:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Realistically, it doesn't matter anyway. We have a vanity-published book, listed but not stocked by the major booksellers, no verifiable sales, no verifiable reviews or significant attention from major press outlets. Even if no vandalism had ever occurred in this AFD, the results were inevitable from the beginning. The repeated vandalism just makes everyone involved feel better about deleting it. Fan-1967 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom --RMHED 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Closermac Cynical 22:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nom, Fan-1967 and DavidWBrooks. A misleading article on a non-notable book. Victoriagirl 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity, advertisement, spam. Robertissimo 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:VSCA, non-notable book, advertising. --Terence Ong (T | C) 03:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that's exactly what Ken Lay needed: the cause of suffering is desire. Still think he would have done the same thing. This is garbled nutcase business management text that not even the most stonecold of yoga attenders in the Simi/Seemy Valley would pick up. NN, vanity, spam.Delete.-Kmaguir1 08:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Non-notable. Ad. Fails WP:DUMB, IMO. Moreschi 13:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Flying Jazz 02:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - Problems with rampant OR have been identified, the page consists of a set of one-line anecdotes, and WP:OR is a fundamental pillar of encyclopedic integrity. This concerns have not been refuted by the opposition, who want to wait for expansion - The page has been moved to User:Whitesurf/Armed Conflict and Proselytizing for work until a non-OR version can be produced. As with yesterday, angry complaints/inquiries please direct to my talk page.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Essay, non-enciclopedic abakharev 06:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - I'm not really sure what this article is supposed to be about...? Wickethewok 13:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This article has just been started. Please allow it some time. It is about proselitization during armed conflict, for example proselitization during insurgancies like those in Nepal, Sri Lanka or Myanmar, or during the Korean war. This is an important topic in history and theology. This will be an informative article once it has been expanded.--Whitesurf 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Que?--ZayZayEM 15:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This will be a valuable and interesting article when it has more text.--Whitesurf 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I smell original research Cynical 22:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Whitesurf. The church has fundded such groups as the NLFT and the like. It should be moved to Armed Conflict and ProselytizingBakaman Bakatalk 04:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Cynical. BhaiSaab talk 04:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR essay. --Ragib 04:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, incomprehensibly not able to stand its own.-Kmaguir1 08:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom TerryJ-Ho 10:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Author has just begun editing. Give him (them) time and monitor for problems.Shiva's Trident 11:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - An encyclopedia would have one entry for Armed conflict and a second entry on Proselytism. An essay writer might then use those entries to write an essay connecting the two. But an encyclopedia wouldn't have an article with this name. Flying Jazz 13:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Whitesurf Kla'quot Sound 03:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a valid subject. There are related articles Religious conversion,Religious war, Militant Islam, Church Militant, and several articles that are parts of the category "Religious behaviour and experience" [19]; but none of them cover this significant topic.--Bandyopadhyay 04:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obvious OR. None of the references provided are of works that make the same argument; references merely back up the background facts on which an argument is constructed. The argument might be true, but is original research as far as WP is concerned. Hornplease 08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:OR essay, obviously. Sandstein 17:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, per nom. Anirvan 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated this article for deletion, as the text is written in future-tense, though the dates have already passed. Aside from being orphaned, nothing seems to point to this page, which would indicate that is has no inherent value. Kevin 06:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete undistinguished proposition. Gazpacho 06:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete what?--ZayZayEM 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep controversial and notable enough. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 23:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I linked to a newspaper article stating that the proposition was approved. I also linked to Prop H from Gun control in the United States (by state), which already had a brief description of the ordinance. The article on Proposition H can be expanded to include earlier proposals and drafts, public debate, analysis of voting patterns and other issues that are not germane to Gun control in the United States (by state). An interesting case in passage of a US gun-control law. Fg2 02:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sort of slight crystal ball gazing, but "consideration" is such a flexible way to put things to keep them in.-Kmaguir1 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After waiting a couple of days, I still feel that the content falls in a few places under the WP:NOT umbrella. Assuming the information it contains is somehow valuable, the article should be overhauled. I think the absence of links to it prove that it isn't significant to other articles, and the lack of maintenance demonstrates that it isn't important enough to be maintained. Maybe it could be merged with a list of California-centric proposals, or a list of gun control proposals? Kevin 19:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no basis established for deletion. Google suggests ample sources exist for future development. Pieces of legislation very frequently develop enough sources to warrant an article, this doesn't appear to be an exception. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: independent press coverage and proposition has passed into law. Gun control always seem to be a big issue in the USA. Stephen B Streater 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please this legislation is important no basis established for deletion Yuckfoo 09:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Stephen B Streater. bbx 19:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --- Deville (Talk) 03:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, fails WP:BIO abakharev 06:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN on its face. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedy Delete by WP:CSD#G4 reposted material previously deleted. --- GIen 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a band that does not yet appear to meet WP:MUSIC. -- The Anome 06:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC -- The Anome 06:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:SISTER --PEAR 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: re WP:SISTER: which sister project do you want to move this article to? -- The Anome 06:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Greek Wiktionary --PEAR 13:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. Ryūlóng 06:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 merge into the Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article on non-notable failed candidate created during the last Canadian federal election. Subject's domain name now offered for sale. Victoriagirl 07:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Kirjtc2 11:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- second that Merge--ZayZayEM 15:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election as per Kirjtc2.Victoriagirl 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. Content has now been merged. Ohconfucius 04:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 test page for userification -- Samir धर्म 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it says, this is not the article, just a testpage, so shouldn't be cluttering up WP, let alone be listed in a category.
Smerus 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G2, especially consdering this edit by the page's creator. Luna Santin 07:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - CSD G2. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll userfy this one to User:Mantanmoreland's userspace and decategorize it -- Samir धर्म 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable neologism. Only one google reference abakharev 07:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no redirection, as non-widespread neologism. Punkmorten 08:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Islamofascism Cynical 22:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as noted. Flying Jazz 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing to merge. One quote from a little-known congressman earlier this week is not a basis for an article. Fan-1967 02:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is getting to be ridiculous. How many neologisms are we going to incorporate into this project?--Kitrus 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nonsense Bertilvidet 12:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Kla'quot Sound 04:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Reza1 08:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- REDIRECT to Islamofascism.--Mike18xx 02:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable poker player. Allegedly finished 6th in an EPT event, although there is no record of this in the Hendon Mob Database, therefore fails WP:BIO and WP:Verifiability. Also uncategorized. Delete Essexmutant 07:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, best placing was 6th somewhere, how renowned is that? --Dhartung | Talk 23:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I googled "Shaun Mckernan" -"wikipedia" and got 40 results. All were related to tech support questions and a high school student's profile. AFink 16:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bunch of schoolkids doing proto-Jackass. Previously New generation stunt men has been speedy deleted, see User talk:NGSM2000. Budgiekiller 07:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Not notable in any way. Budgiekiller 07:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Liface 07:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (handy when the entry is full of in-jokes). Jackass has an awful lot to answer for. BigHaz 07:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable poker player. Article is unreferenced, uncategorized and contains POV. Delete Essexmutant 07:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Hasn't won anything or recieved real media coverage. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article completely fails to assert notability --Mnemeson 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, just remove POV. BK is a well-respected poker player and a moderator at the popular twoplustwo.com. --Fudgenut 02:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's a notable poker player, and has been covered in the media. 11,200 Google hits. Mugaliens 14:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any sources for the media coverage? If you do, you can add them to the article and that would change things. Otherwise I say delete. Simply being a respected player and twoplustwo moderator don't warrant an article. AFink 01:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one tournament finish in the Hendon Mob database (assuming it's the same person) [20]. Essexmutant 01:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice until verifiable sources can be provided to suggest notability as a poker player. RFerreira 20:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 MERGE into Classes in World of Warcraft. The raw totals are 9 Delete, 2 Keep, 4 Merge. Merge preserves the material, so collapse that into 9 Delete the material, 6 Keep the material in some form. That alone is not enough of a statistical edge to make a deletion a no-brainer. The argumentation is about equal. Therefore, no consensus to delete, defaults in this case to merge, since most of the Keep-the-material comments were to merg. Most of the merge votes were to merge the material. A couple of the Merge votes were to merge the material into the separate articles for each class, but these seem not to exist, so I merged into Classes in World of Warcraft. Herostratus 15:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Game guide. Delete just like Warcraft III units and structures (AFD) and many more. Punkmorten 08:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 09:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete TJ Spyke 09:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not a guide, doesnt tell the player how to play, just lists skills. Has the nominator actually read this, its not guiding anything, this is as basic as telling someone the rook moves vertically and horizontally. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Disarm- this skill disarm the target, greatly reducing the targets melee attack damage and producing aggro., your telling me that doesn't read like a game guide?--Andeh 11:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it reads like a game mechanics description - a game guide differs from this, in that it would detail the use of game mechanics, normally introducing POV. Seems like we need a formal description of a game guide to me. LinaMishima 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying a Rook moves horizontally and diagonally is not a game guide, hence stating disarm does XYZ is not a game guide. Stating a good time to disarm is when and it can be used in conjunction with skill Z is a gameguide. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it reads like a game mechanics description - a game guide differs from this, in that it would detail the use of game mechanics, normally introducing POV. Seems like we need a formal description of a game guide to me. LinaMishima 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Disarm- this skill disarm the target, greatly reducing the targets melee attack damage and producing aggro., your telling me that doesn't read like a game guide?--Andeh 11:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, blatant game guide/fancruft.--Andeh 11:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above --Peephole 11:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I suppose next they'll just paste the whole manual into an article. Recury 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no, only excerpts from it. That way it's still fair use. :) GarrettTalk 23:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Warcruft. GarrettTalk 23:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge details into the associated WoW class articles LinaMishima 02:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The skill lists could easily be merged into the associated WoW class articles. Hyde_v 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep or merge it is to basic to read as a game guide and if you guys think it reads too much like a game guide, why doesnt someone edit it so it doesn't. However i do agree about merge it into the respective class pages. --Comicdude 12:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Zer0faults --Pinkkeith 23:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wholly indistinguishable from a manual excerpt, how-to file, or GameFAQs page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Listcruft, burn it with fiar. Axem Titanium 01:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. See WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. +Fin- 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that having a podcast, and running a message board (even if it is a massive one) is sufficient to make you notable. Searching for his name does bring up lots of google hits, but they are not all references to him. Ladybirdintheuk 08:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - he is a staff member at a top website, host a top podcast, and a bunch of other stuff.--andrew 09:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete This is a fansite, not a top website - he's a senior in high school according to the article. Dlyons493 Talk 11:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. It's not even about the fansite, it's about the teenager who runs it, listing his favourite movies. Completely NN. --Mnemeson 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He actually works at the site, not just a fansite. He is the third employee down --andrew 06:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn as per nom. Marcus22 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Vanity page. Not notable.--Getaway 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Why don't you just redirect to MuggleNet then? --andrew 06:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Polar bear swim club that swims in Long Island Sound in winter. No real claim to notability in the article. Three GHits all from wikipedia or mirrors [21] -- Samir धर्म 08:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Obviously, per nom. Wickethewok 13:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --ZayZayEM 15:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Vanity page. Eixo 14:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic contested prod, looks like some sort of advertising. MER-C 08:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nigel (Talk) 13:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete weird--ZayZayEM 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave What could it be advertising? 144.132.45.146 01:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant spam, prod contested. MER-C 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Better delete savidan(talk) (e@) 08:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam Dlyons493 Talk 11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pure spam Nigel (Talk) 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam no eggs--ZayZayEM 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam, with a side of opinion sauce --65.16.61.35 18:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 a-ha, delete! - Mailer Diablo 10:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very good article, and I don't believe that she's a notable person. All Google hits for her name (in quotation marks) were for Wikipedia or similar types of site. Dancarney 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Despite the fact that she "believes in the power of dreams". Wickethewok 13:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is her name spelt correctly? Internet available information may not be in English.--ZayZayEM 15:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AHA - Rebecca Lee REDIRECT/Merge
- Delete - Vanity page. Not notable.--Getaway 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Although it's interesting to see someone claim that the Earth has three poles. --Pagana 21:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to Homophobia. There are sources here, but the article is completely and utterly redundant with that article and/or societal attitudes towards homosexuality.--SB | T 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DicDef. Nothing useful here that can't be handled by a Wiktionary entry, to the limited extent that the term even exists as a distinct word. Article is just an exercise in polemics. Herostratus 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets see what happened here.
- (cur) (last) 04:51, September 1, 2006 Moriori (Talk | contribs) (Redirect instead of delete)
- (cur) (last) 04:39, September 1, 2006 Herostratus (Talk | contribs) (AfD)
- (cur) (last) 04:15, September 1, 2006 Britcom (Talk | contribs) (Stub)
- Hmmm. as we can see here the page was first created at 04:15. I wasn't even done editing it when Herostratus surfed in and posted the AfD on it at 04:39. and then it disappeared altogether when Moriori redirected it to "homophobia", a page with many, many questions of neutrality, not to mention that "homophobia" has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-homosexualism. Why would Herostratus and Moriori be so blindingly quick to judge a page that was not even an hour old and was not even finished being created? I have reverted it now and continue to add more to it. I would appreciate it if everyone would lay off the page until I have had a chance to flesh it out.
- I took a look at Herostratus' user page, and now I think I know what his problem with this page is, and it has nothing to do with "usefulness". He states on his user page that he is a Unitarian Universalist, a well known pro-homosexual organization. UU is something that I am quite familiar with. So it appears that he may have a bias against the subject matter of the page, rather than concern about the usefulness of the page. The reason I created this page is because "anti-homosexualism" is a plank in the KKK's supremacist philosophy and the Nazi's final solution and deserves its own article. I suspect that Herostratus' is trying to silence the article rather than add to its usefulness. This is a serious subject, and it deserves serious attention. "Homophobia" on the other hand, is not a political philosophy and is a pejorative created and promoted by pro-homosexual activists for use against those that oppose their agenda and therefore has no relationship to this article. Anyone doubting that should read both pages and judge for themselves. --Britcom 11:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I suggest you attest to the merits of the article, rather than contesting those of the nominator. Wickethewok 13:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time there was hardly any article to speak of yet as 20 minutes was not enough time for me to finish before the AfD was posted on it . I felt under attack by a drive by deletion. I feel that given the circumstances the reasons stated for the AfD were less than honest. --Britcom 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems sourced and encyclopaedic - although I wouldn't be opposed to a merging, if there's an appropriate target (I have no idea) WilyD 14:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as POV fork. I have never heard the term, and I get about 120 google hits for "anti-homosexualism" and less than half that for the unhyphenated version. (Weirdly, when I accidently clicked "maps" when googling anti-homosexualism, it found the Academy Awards.) The fact that the author cites the demonstrably false definition of homophobia as "fear" (Anti-homosexualism is a calculated political philosophy ... It is not associated with a fear of homosexuals), as well as his characterization of the UU church above, leads me to believe that this is an attempt to discredit the very common and well-understood word "homophobia" by introducing a near-neologism. I agree that the Nazi and KKK anti-gay activities deserve mention, which is why we have Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Some detail could be added there. bikeable (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how anything I have placed in the article could be considered POV. It is mostly undisputed history. Anyway I don't own it, you can edit it if you don't like the way it reads.
- I did not say "homophobia" is a fear of homosexuals, the homophobia Wikipage says that, and I didn't put it there. I was saying that the terms are distinct from each other.
- I have sourced the term back to at least 1957 on the internet. I don't believe that there is another term that describes what the Nazi's policy was with regard to homosexuals and that was many years before 1957. I would not consider it a trivial event either. For example: "The extermination of homosexuals during WWII was as a result of Nazi ______________." What else fits in this blank?
- About the UU, I can source what I said if you like. They are not afraid to admit that they have many openly gay leaders and members. I have met some of them.
- Anti-homosexualism does not just encompass violence, it also encompasses political opposition, rhetoric, activism and institutional and religious opposition.
- I don't think this time frame for AfD is fair. I am new at this and this page is being scrutinized even before it is a day old. Don't you think that the first editor of an article should be given 24 hours, not 24 minutes before someone slaps an AfD on it? --Britcom 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the rapid AfD, but it's common practice to get an early start, partly because it's easiest to find new articles and partly because it'll save the authors a lot of time in the long run. In any case... the word "homophobia" fits in just fine in the sentence you propose; or a variant, like "national homophobic policies" or something perhaps more strongly worded. The first sentence of the homophobia article says, fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals, which overlaps pretty much completely with the definition you posit for "anti-homosexualism". I see that you found a 1957 reference (good work), but I still do not think the term is notable or widely used, even if it is occasionally used. (I find many more google hits for a term I thought I just made up at random, anti-Big Mac. Just because people string words together does not require us to have an encyclopedia article on them.) As for the UUs, of course they are open to gays, but I wouldn't call them a well known pro-homosexual organization. Finally, I suggest again that Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered is an appropriate (and existing) article for some of the detail you have included. bikeable (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks but so far I am not being overwhelmed with logic or reasoning as to why groups are being diagnosed with a mental disorder (Homophobia) rather than simply use the obvious term for their contempt (Anti-homosexualism). --Britcom 13:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Homophobia, <strikeout>at beast</strikeout> - Unsure - there does seem to be a mounting and convincing argument that they are slight difeferences in teh terminology. It is certainly NOT A NEOLOGISM--ZayZayEM 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ZayZayEM also stated on my user page that; "Homophobia...is a neologism". I think he may have a point. --Britcom 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. There are only 316 google hits for "Anti-homosexualism" so it appears to be an original research type of word. Not permitted.--Alabamaboy 16:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I have shown and sourced that the word predates the www and Google. Homophobia is not that old of a word. What word do you suppose they used back in 1957, or is no one old enough to remember that here. Are we engaging in sponging history away here? More sources are coming up.
- But homophobia is an accepted word in the dictionary and has 9 million plus google hits. Your word falls under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. --Alabamaboy 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, this word is more like a Protologisms but the neologism prohibition still stands.--Alabamaboy 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Look again, I have shown that the two words are not synonyms and I have sourced literary usage in 1957 and 2000. The definitions are totally distinct and without similarity. The word and its meaning are unique. One word refers to philosophy the other to a neurosis. You are just angry because I put a link on "your" page. Grow up.--Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a neurosis, and no one claims that it is. You may wish that everyone should "simply use the obvious term", but in fact there is a word that everyone does use (homophobia), and there is a word that essentially no one uses (anti-homosexualism). Wikipedia is not here to advocate for which words ought to be used. bikeable (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is based on comparing apples and oranges. I am saying the terms are unrelated, distinct and should be understood that way. "Homophobia" describes an attitude within the mind of the individual. "Anti-homosexualism" is the political targeting of homosexuals for attack or opposition by a political or religious group. According to your logic, "Xenophobia" and "Terrorism" would mean the same thing.--Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a neurosis, and no one claims that it is. You may wish that everyone should "simply use the obvious term", but in fact there is a word that everyone does use (homophobia), and there is a word that essentially no one uses (anti-homosexualism). Wikipedia is not here to advocate for which words ought to be used. bikeable (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Look again, I have shown that the two words are not synonyms and I have sourced literary usage in 1957 and 2000. The definitions are totally distinct and without similarity. The word and its meaning are unique. One word refers to philosophy the other to a neurosis. You are just angry because I put a link on "your" page. Grow up.--Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, this word is more like a Protologisms but the neologism prohibition still stands.--Alabamaboy 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But homophobia is an accepted word in the dictionary and has 9 million plus google hits. Your word falls under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. --Alabamaboy 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I have shown and sourced that the word predates the www and Google. Homophobia is not that old of a word. What word do you suppose they used back in 1957, or is no one old enough to remember that here. Are we engaging in sponging history away here? More sources are coming up.
- Redirect. I think pushing for an AfD if the article is only 20 minutes old is a little OTT but, assuming that a Redirect covers the same ground, it was only inevitable. Marcus22 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A new article that includes verifiable instances of usage. It's true that the google hits on "antihomosexualism" are in the hundreds, but "antihomosexual" has over 18,000 hits, and there are over 100 wikipedia articles that use the term. From a word-usage perspective, a sound argument could be made that there is a clear distinction between antihomosexualism and homophobia. A sound argument could also be made that there isn't. But since there are verifiable instances of people making the distinction, the article should be in Wikipedia so people can read and learn about it. Flying Jazz 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- See below, new opinion from me also. Flying Jazz 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see references and an establishment for the validity of this seperate to homophobia. In many respects, it is technically homophobia that is misnamed. It is worth noting that you can't campaign "for homophobia", but you can campaign "against homosexuality". LinaMishima 02:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- See below, new 'vote' LinaMishima 16:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An excellent point. --Britcom 06:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa There. Yes when I nominated this article it was just a stub, and that happens sometimes. But even so, this is not a keepful article because there ain't no such word, it's a neologism made up by the author to try to tie together the Nazi Party and the Westboro Baptist Church (!) together into some kind of unified movement, which is about the silliest idea I've seen today. Sure the word "anti-homosexualism" is properly formed, but you can add "anti" to most any English word. "I really only like to have sofas in my house, I'm pretty much anti-chair" is a meaningful English sentence which has not doubt been uttered. Does that mean that "anti-chair" is a real English word that should have a dictionary definition or a Wikipedia article? No, and neither is "Anti-homosexualism". The whole unsaid but obvious WP:POINT of the article is: Don't like gays? Well you're a Nazi of a Klanner then. But look. First of all, the Nazis hated lots of people, they weren't primarily an anti-gay organization and neither is the Klan. Second of all, everybody was anti-gay until about 1960 or whenever. Third of all, you'd have include the Catholic Church and the FBI and God knows who else if you want to list anti-gay organizations, if you're going to reach back into the 1940's or whatever. I mean since we're talking about organizations who showed "organized hostility toward or opposition against homosexuals as a group" but not as their primary thrust, you'd have to list practically every social organization and private company that existed, since we're going back into the 40's. Finally, the writer's contention that I'm against this article because I'm a Unitarian is just bizarre; I'm against it in spite of being a Unitarian, a denomination sympathetic to the writer's WP:POINT (hey, my minister is gay), but, here, I'm a Wikipedian first. You can't tie the Nazis, the Westboro Baptist Church, and Islam together with your original research and neologism into some kind of non-existant movement, and you can't hijack Wikipedia for your own ends, no matter how noble. Herostratus 07:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that the dispute shouldn't be about personalities, but your contention that the word is "a neologism made up by the author" surprised me when the author of the article cites verifiable usage of the word from 1957 and 1971. WP:POINT is about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Adding an article to the namespace is not disruptive. It is a good-faith attempt to contribute. Your objections seem to be based on WP:NPOV, that the author has written an article with a biased point of view to "make a point." The cure for that is to edit the article to make it NPOV--not to delete the article. http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/chauncey.html is a faculty web-page at Yale by a man who uses the word in describing his field of study. It is unlikely that the word "anti-chair" appears in a similar context. Flying Jazz 12:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Good arguments from Herostratus, unbelievably bad ones from Britcom. This is just making an essay up from legitimate composite parts, like putting baked beans and pulled pork together to make baked-pulled beans and pork.-Kmaguir1 08:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I redirected this because that is what it deserved. But I now change to delete after seeing Britcom say "homophobia" has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-homosexualism. He should read the intro to Homophobia, which says "hatred or disapproval of homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures". Moriori 08:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Herostratus and Moriori (as shown above) are the two responsible for the "drive by" AfD and redirect. The two of them are just trying to defend their attack on the page that I am trying to work on. Moriori violated the AfD rules when he redirected the page to "Homophobia" 12 minutes after the AfD box was posted on the page. In light of their zeal to delete this page, even violating Wikipedia rules to do so, I think their opinions posted here are suspect. Remember, Wikipedia's code of conduct says "Assume good faith". I have no Wikipedia violations, and I have no axe to grind. This is my first page and I have done my best to be neutral with a topic that generates lots of emotions. The examples I chose are the most obvious examples of "Anti-homosexualism" that I can think of. I would love for other Wikiedians to add more or edit what I have written for accuracy. But that does not seem to be the agenda here. The agenda here is to attack me and my edits as worthless or underhanded. If they are so bad, then why not just edit them instead of jumping straight to deletion? Why not discuss it on the talk page? No, that’s not good enough for them they want to get rid of it so no one can read what it says. I thought we were supposed to be neutral here, and not favoring one side of a controversy. It seems to me that the word has a history and now apparently a controversy because some seemingly want to control what you read by forcing a proverbial square peg (political or religious hatred or opposition to homosexuality) into a round hole ("homophobia"). (See how many words I had to use to say what it is without using the one word "Anti-homosexualism".) Apparently we have two schools of thought here. One that says: "Oh the author has an agenda and that's the reason he set up the page." and on the other hand there is: "Oh the author just doesn't understand that we all have decided to change the definition of "Anti-homosexualism" to a word that makes it sound like those who are against homosexuals are suffering from a "phobia", and well, he must not have gotten the memo." Not one of them has addressed the glaring hole in their reasoning. Namely that "Anti-homosexualism" always refers to the ACTIONS of organized groups, and "homophobia" always refers to the MINDSET of individuals. The words are clearly not synonyms. Everybody can understand this when they read it. But some don't seem to want it put into print. That means they think they own Wikipedia. That also means that they think they know better than you what you should be reading. They are trying to slant Wikipedia's content, and by the same token, limit your access to knowledge they don't "approve" of. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Do these people represent a "neutral" viewpoint? It seems that I am getting a better education here than I bargained for, and unfortunately, its all bad. What a black-eye this is for Wikipedia. What a black-eye this is for the Internet. Sickening. --Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You should take your own advice and assume good faith. I attacked the page? I have a zeal to delete even tho I changed delete to a redirect? My opinion posted here (is) suspect? Instead of giving me a right old bollocking you should be thanking me because my redirect allowed you to make such profound statements as "Anti-homosexualism" always refers to the ACTIONS of organized groups". Yeah right. Moriori 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote from the AfD box "the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed" Redirecting before the AfD discussion period ends is not allowed. That's all I'll say. The rest is below. --Britcom 10:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You should take your own advice and assume good faith. I attacked the page? I have a zeal to delete even tho I changed delete to a redirect? My opinion posted here (is) suspect? Instead of giving me a right old bollocking you should be thanking me because my redirect allowed you to make such profound statements as "Anti-homosexualism" always refers to the ACTIONS of organized groups". Yeah right. Moriori 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your frustration and I agree with much of what you've written. But frustration isn't a reason to make personal attacks against individuals or against Wikipedia as a whole. You might want to step back a little from the AfD page, keep working to improve the article, and let new folks come to state their opinions. Flying Jazz 13:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right of course. --Britcom 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Herostratus and Moriori (as shown above) are the two responsible for the "drive by" AfD and redirect. The two of them are just trying to defend their attack on the page that I am trying to work on. Moriori violated the AfD rules when he redirected the page to "Homophobia" 12 minutes after the AfD box was posted on the page. In light of their zeal to delete this page, even violating Wikipedia rules to do so, I think their opinions posted here are suspect. Remember, Wikipedia's code of conduct says "Assume good faith". I have no Wikipedia violations, and I have no axe to grind. This is my first page and I have done my best to be neutral with a topic that generates lots of emotions. The examples I chose are the most obvious examples of "Anti-homosexualism" that I can think of. I would love for other Wikiedians to add more or edit what I have written for accuracy. But that does not seem to be the agenda here. The agenda here is to attack me and my edits as worthless or underhanded. If they are so bad, then why not just edit them instead of jumping straight to deletion? Why not discuss it on the talk page? No, that’s not good enough for them they want to get rid of it so no one can read what it says. I thought we were supposed to be neutral here, and not favoring one side of a controversy. It seems to me that the word has a history and now apparently a controversy because some seemingly want to control what you read by forcing a proverbial square peg (political or religious hatred or opposition to homosexuality) into a round hole ("homophobia"). (See how many words I had to use to say what it is without using the one word "Anti-homosexualism".) Apparently we have two schools of thought here. One that says: "Oh the author has an agenda and that's the reason he set up the page." and on the other hand there is: "Oh the author just doesn't understand that we all have decided to change the definition of "Anti-homosexualism" to a word that makes it sound like those who are against homosexuals are suffering from a "phobia", and well, he must not have gotten the memo." Not one of them has addressed the glaring hole in their reasoning. Namely that "Anti-homosexualism" always refers to the ACTIONS of organized groups, and "homophobia" always refers to the MINDSET of individuals. The words are clearly not synonyms. Everybody can understand this when they read it. But some don't seem to want it put into print. That means they think they own Wikipedia. That also means that they think they know better than you what you should be reading. They are trying to slant Wikipedia's content, and by the same token, limit your access to knowledge they don't "approve" of. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Do these people represent a "neutral" viewpoint? It seems that I am getting a better education here than I bargained for, and unfortunately, its all bad. What a black-eye this is for Wikipedia. What a black-eye this is for the Internet. Sickening. --Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Goldfritha 18:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
- This is a new article only a few days old. It has not had enough time to develop.
- The reasons given above are listed as: "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed" on WP's deletion policy. WP:DEL. They don't qualify as valid reasons for deletion of a new article according to the policy.
- Quote: "Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." WP:AFD This article was less than an hour old and no discussion was made on the article's talk page either for deletion or redirection.
- The article that some have voted to redirect this article to, (Homophobia) has been described as a Neologism WP:NEO (see above) and may not be allowed. Also, its neutrality is currently marked as disputed. Anti-homosexualism has been sourced in the article at least as far back as 1957, and 1971, and 2000 with hundreds of quotations currently on the internet, so it can't be a Neologism. Both articles also clearly identify conflicting differences in their respective definitions. Even if one does not agree, clearly there is a dispute and dispute is enough for keeping the article according to policy. The dispute can also be verified on the homophobia talk page.
- "Don't bite the newcomers." WP:BITE. The author is a newcomer to WP and WP policy states that editors should help newcomers develop new pages when possible, not just delete them.
- Its a good article compared to many. It has potential.
- The subject matter is current, controversial and has been a factor in world events and world history.
- The subject matter is likely to be a factor in future events. (the author) --Britcom 10:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BITE does not pertain; no one has treated you inappropriately, we are simply discussing the suitability of an article. Nor does anyone dispute the importance of the subject matter. And how is it that the disputed term "can't be a neologism" with its hundreds of google hits, but you think homophobia can be, despite 100,000 times as many google references? bikeable (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided On the one hand, it appears to be neologism. On the other hand, being against something is different than being afraid of it. Much of the content in the homophobia entry has nothing to do with fear, and should be instead moved into this artical. Perhaps a rewording of the title might suffice so it's no longer neologism. Mugaliens 15:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of the content in the homophobia entry has nothing to do with fear: that's because the common usage of "homophobia" has little to do with fear, despite what you might expect from the suffix -phobia; see extensive discussions of this subject at Talk:Homophobia. I am fearful that this AfD will result in wikipedia's homophobia article being split into two, and putting the extremely well-known term homophobia (10 million google hits) on par with what I still believe to be an uncommon word or neologism anti-homosexualism, with a few hundred google hits at most. bikeable (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bikeable is right that homophobia is a much more commonly used term than anti-homosexualism. However, the uncommon word was used in the 50s while the common one was coined for its current definition in the 60s. The neologism argument is unsound. The idea of having two or more articles on two or more related but not identical topics should not instill us with fear because there are precedents for this in Wikipedia. For example: Judeophobia, Anti-semitism, Anti-Judaism and Persecution of Jews are four closely related, non-identical topics. With verifiable citations (and still a lot of argument), the differences in meaning and article scope that you'd expect from an encyclopedia get worked out. Flying Jazz 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that Wikipages Linuxism, Raelism, and anti-Turkism all have Google hits in the hundreds, and ineffablilism has only 14 hits on Google. I don't think Wikipedia has a policy about Google hits though. --Britcom 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For the reasons listed by Britcom above. The article has potential and should be given a chance. Eecon 02:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is beginning to show signs of being encyclopedic, but its title is very poorly chosen. MERGE with most of of Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered and RENAME to Persecution of homosexuals (currently a redirect to the above), and develop from there. -- The Anome 09:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many forms of Anti-homosexualism that don't include persecution or violence. Protesting by the Westboro Baptist Church for example. --Britcom 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A perfect example of homophobia, according to the Anti-defamation League. "Westboro baptist church" homophobia OR homophobic gets me 28,000 google hits. Using anti-homosexualism instead, I get only a few hits... the very first of which is the wikipedia page for WBC on which you added a link to Anti-homosexualism. The usage is quite clear. bikeable (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many forms of Anti-homosexualism that don't include persecution or violence. Protesting by the Westboro Baptist Church for example. --Britcom 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Persecution of homosexuals (or LGBT), merge some content to Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Peaceful protesting against LGBT matters is persecution, just with a nice fuzzy coating. Persecution of homosexuals has a good changce of winding up as a very well done entry on historical events. LinaMishima 16:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First, anyone who wants to know what persecution is only needs to ask a survivor of Auschwitz or visit the Holocaust page. It is not federally protected speech.
- Second, there is a logic problem in comparing the words Homophobia and Anti-homosexualism. Anti-homosexualism is a more general term. Homophobia, as defined, would be correctly classified as a form of Anti-homosexualism; but not all forms of Anti-homosexualism are Homophobia related and some are non-violent. Some forms are moralistic, some are political, and some are traditional. For example, not all forms of Anti-Americanism include persecution or violence against Americans. To use the logic stated above, you would have to say that all "peaceful" Anti-American "protests" are a form persecution. That just doesn't fly. Therefore, the title of the article should not be limited to just "persecution". Anti-homosexualism is the most logical form. --Britcom 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not federally protected speech. …Which assumes that 1. a US POV is entirely acceptable here on wikipedia, and 2. speech that incites hatred is perfectly acceptable. Even if your point is correct, I suspect that the retitling to a more obvious title might be a good idea - campaigns against homosexuality, for example. It should be noted that persecution is not defined by the scale of the act, but the intent. LinaMishima 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, the Westboro Baptist Church is a church in the USA, therefore United States law applies to it and The US Constitution protects it, and everyone else in the USA, the right to peaceful demonstration and freedom of speech. I was referring to WBC's anti-homosexual demonstrations as federally protected. I am aware that other nations do not recognize a right to demonstrate. The US Constitution guarantees all of its citizens the right to freedom of speech. Both positive and negative speech is protected. It has been that way for over two hundred years. I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear. --Britcom 22:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And to clarify a minor point of law, wikipedia, along with all non-government websites, classes as a private forum, and so the first ammendment does not apply. LinaMishima 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comment seems to imply that I have somehow invoked the First Amendment within Wikipedia; that was certainly not the purpose of my comment. I referenced its protections with regard to WBC's speech, which it has exercised while standing on a public street corner or other public place. The real point of my comment was that anyone standing on a public street corner in the US exercising their Constitutional rights cannot legally be considered engaging in "persecution". While their speech is definitely anti-homosexual, it is also lawful. The discussion or documentation of that subject within Wikipedia is not the same as the (above implied) claiming of any rights within Wikipedia. I don't see how one could make that assumption from what I said. Discussion about others use of the First Amendment should not be construed as attempting to claim a personal right under it in Wikipedia. --Britcom 09:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And to clarify a minor point of law, wikipedia, along with all non-government websites, classes as a private forum, and so the first ammendment does not apply. LinaMishima 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, the Westboro Baptist Church is a church in the USA, therefore United States law applies to it and The US Constitution protects it, and everyone else in the USA, the right to peaceful demonstration and freedom of speech. I was referring to WBC's anti-homosexual demonstrations as federally protected. I am aware that other nations do not recognize a right to demonstrate. The US Constitution guarantees all of its citizens the right to freedom of speech. Both positive and negative speech is protected. It has been that way for over two hundred years. I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear. --Britcom 22:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Regardless of the merits of your other arguments, the en: Wikipedia is written in English, and "anti-homosexualism" is not common English usage. The phrases "homophobia" and "persecution of homosexuals" have clear meanings in common use, which seem to be understood by every other poster here. If you want to redefine common English use, please do it elsewhere first, and when the English-speaking world adopts your usage, we will be able to do so as well. -- The Anome 23:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't speak for "every other poster here." Speak for yourself only. I'm a poster in here and I've never understood that the word "homophobia" has a clear meaning. The section dedicated to etymology and usage at the homophobia article indicates a huge amount of confusion and debate over that term and its usage. "Common usage" is not a requirement for an article in Wikipedia. "Verifiable usage" is. Words and ideas are not like corporations or products which must be very well-known before Wikipedia has an article on them. You are setting a standard that is different from Wikipedia's standard. Flying Jazz 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not federally protected speech. …Which assumes that 1. a US POV is entirely acceptable here on wikipedia, and 2. speech that incites hatred is perfectly acceptable. Even if your point is correct, I suspect that the retitling to a more obvious title might be a good idea - campaigns against homosexuality, for example. It should be noted that persecution is not defined by the scale of the act, but the intent. LinaMishima 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Some new references now appear on the Anti-homosexualism page, including one from an official Israeli government website. --Britcom 09:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nominator. Obviously this article is very much farther along than when I nominated it. How about removing all the non-Nazi material and renaming it Nazi persecution of homosexuals. That would be a good article (although more sourcing is needed). Otherwise my objection still stands. Also, if there is not an article along the lines of State persecution of homosexuals (which I'd be surprised if there isn't) that would be a useful article. Herostratus 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article you suggest already exists at History of gay people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.--Alabamaboy 13:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am keeping my vote to delete. That said, I wanted to point out to editors that Britcom is attempting to replace the word homophobia with Anti-homosexualism in a number of articles on Wikipedia, such as Ku Klux Klan. I believe this type of POV pushing is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Finally, while I understand why some people would want to use Anti-homosexualism over homophobia, this is a debate that--yet again--does not belong at Wikipedia. If Britcom can convince the world at large to accept the term, he/she is welcome to come back here and restart the article. Otherwise, delete it.--Alabamaboy 13:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed I noticed that in the end…LinaMishima 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that Britcom's contributions overwhelmingly suggest he/she is trying to promote the adoption of this word at Wikipedia. See [22].--Alabamaboy 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's always a good idea to search through Wikipedia and create links to a new article at appropriate places. This is a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia even though I understand it could be regarded as POV-pushing by someone who believes the article should not be included. An AfD shouldn't prevent someone from doing this. I think it is part of Wikipedia's mission to spread knowledge about concepts and their associated words regardless of whether the word is in common use. This is particularly true for a word like antihomosexualism that has existed and been used for decades. My impression is that debates about word choice and word usage occur at Wikipedia all the time in talk pages and AfD discussions, but I agree with Alabamaboy that they usually don't belong in the articles themselves. The "Modern usage" section of the article was POV-pushing when it said one word "should not be confused" with another and I've edited this. Better to provide footnotes to verifiable citations where the usage is discussed and leave it to the reader about what should be said or written. Note: I am keeping my vote to
keep. Flying Jazz 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Ultimately, I changed my mind about this. Flying Jazz 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's always a good idea to search through Wikipedia and create links to a new article at appropriate places. This is a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia even though I understand it could be regarded as POV-pushing by someone who believes the article should not be included. An AfD shouldn't prevent someone from doing this. I think it is part of Wikipedia's mission to spread knowledge about concepts and their associated words regardless of whether the word is in common use. This is particularly true for a word like antihomosexualism that has existed and been used for decades. My impression is that debates about word choice and word usage occur at Wikipedia all the time in talk pages and AfD discussions, but I agree with Alabamaboy that they usually don't belong in the articles themselves. The "Modern usage" section of the article was POV-pushing when it said one word "should not be confused" with another and I've edited this. Better to provide footnotes to verifiable citations where the usage is discussed and leave it to the reader about what should be said or written. Note: I am keeping my vote to
- I should add that Britcom's contributions overwhelmingly suggest he/she is trying to promote the adoption of this word at Wikipedia. See [22].--Alabamaboy 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, if one scratches the surface of Alabamaboy’s conspiracy theory one will discover that all of the recent links that I have placed on other pages were to wikilink the existing unlinked word "anti-homsexual" to the 'Anti-homosexualism article and not (as he suggests) changing all the Homophobia links, to Anti-homosexualism. I challenge anyone to take a look at my edits and see the truth for themselves, and while they are at it, they should also go and read the vitriol that I have had to put up with from Alabamaboy on "his" Talk:Ku Klux Klan page after I put a link on that page (which he promptly deleted). If that is what Alabamaboy is accusing me of, then I plead guilty! I repeat my above statement of Wikipedia policy; “Don’t Bite the Newcomers” WP:BITE. --Britcom 15:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read that page and I do not see vitriol there. You are being unreasonable and uncivil with these challenges and accusations. Being a newcomer does not give you special rights in debates, and when a newcomer is unreasonable and bites, it is perfectly understandable for someone to bite back within reason (although maintaining civility is always the best policy). Your posts above about another editor's religion were way out of line and in many other ways you've been unnecessarily and foolishly confrontational on this page. Stop it. Also, see my most recent comment here. Please respond to it on the talk page. Flying Jazz 16:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's get back to the discussion about the article and quit antagonizing and the author. --Britcom 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaking disagreement and the occasional mistake from other users for antagonism. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Please_do_not_take_it_personally and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. Flying Jazz 20:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge most of this information into homophobia or Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered and redirect the article accordingly. The discussion here from the creator of the article is enough for me to throw assume good faith to the wind. Notice how assuming good faith is NOT encouraged in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Let's review. Britcom has 'attacked' Herostratus through his religion, claiming that it has a 'pro-homosexual' agenda (note how Britcom uses this AS an attack as if it were a BAD thing. Is it unreasonable that this leads me to question his motives?). What would we do if an editor who made an arguing point based upon the fact that their 'opponent's' Userpage had a "This user is Christian" or "This user is Catholic" userbox on it? Of course, we would begin to assume BAD faith (as we should). Britcom also says that the homophobia article has a 'pro-homosexual' POV push. These are red flags to me, personally, and are enough for me to assume that this article was CREATED as a bad faith POV-fork of homophobia. That being said, there IS some good information here, and rather than being spent in a POV-fork article, it should be placed where it belongs, in one of the two articles I suggested. The forthing at the mouth that continues from editors who claim that homophobia does not include opposition to homosexuality or is limited to a FEAR of homosexuals (even though all common sense regarding the usage of the term in actual language would have us believe otherwise) is rather disconcerting and, in my opinion, damaging to the wiki. CaveatLectorTalk 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK but that's not really an argument about the content of the article or the merits of the term though. Armon 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say keep. The word homophobia has a bad history, and in spite of user:bikeable's continual assertions to the contrary, the coiner of the word has been quoted as intending the "fear" component (which quote can be readily found in a Google search). Diverting the discussion specifically of anti-homosexual bigotry over to a term which we can now see is not simply a contributor coinage affords the possibility of being able to discuss that with a WP:NPOV. The big dispute about homophobia per se is that the word itself is POV-pushing; therefore it is impossible to keep the article stable excepting that the enforcer squad for one POV makes sure that the article doesn't say much about that issue. I personally would move all the discussion of prejudice to anti-homosexualism and have homophobia point back to it as a main article, but keep both articles. Mangoe 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally see where you are coming from and the issues with the usage of "homophobia". However, the plain fact is that "homophobia" is used for a great variety of meanings, and "anti-homosexualism" is hardly used at all. It would be nice if we could, as you suggest, "move the discussion of prejudice" to anti-homosexualism, which I agree would make sense based on the apparent etymologies and what the words ought to mean. However, this would be original research. We cannot be prescriptive about what words should or should not mean; we can only report what people use them for. I would recommend the article on Linguistic prescription and I would argue that only a descriptive attitude is WP:NPOV. A true description of usage is that many people use "homophobia" for diverse meanings, and very few use "anti-homosexualism", so we may not move the discussion from the former to the latter. bikeable (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately it seems to me that all your words here do not add up to the actuality of the homophobia article. It is in fact used for POV-pushing as a matter of course, and its content is original research as a matter of course, because while we refer the daylights out of it in order to keep the various POV Patrols from reverting, the synthesis of those references into an article has to go beyond simply referring to an authoritative analysis. Without that, the article cannot be written.
- For you to label one usage as "true" is, in the sense you prefer here, original research, for it is surely your sense of the world you are expressing here, and not some dilligently researched monograph on how the word is used. It is not my sense that the situation is so (if you will pardon the oxymoron) cleanly obscured. The article is being held hostage to the POV-pushing that the word suggests, for Wikipedia is not really distinct from the rest of the world in the issue of the supposed meaning for the word.
- It isn't really true that people looking for anti-homosexual prejudice need be confounded by two articles. Indeed, were I editor-in-chief I would have the -phobia article point back to the other, prominently, above the text. But what you're saying here is that because a lot of people use the words in a muddled and inconstant fashion, that Wikipedia's discussion of the topic likewise must be muddled and inconstant, because it cannot be allowed to structurally reflect the real distinction between talking about that prejudice and speculating about the causes behind it. So we're to be stuck with an article that is structurally POV-pushing, because it doesn't permit a clear distinction.
- Finally, NPOV is dead as a doornail if we are going to commit to a term which is the subject of POV bias in the real world. The suggested "new" term is perhaps uncommon, but is demonstrated to be not unknown, and it is certainly neutral. I say that this is good enough, and that the division between the two articles affords the possibility of real neutrality. The single article does not. Mangoe 21:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate (no seriously, I think this is the problem). Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all knowledge, right? Since knowledge is inherently based upon its perception and uses within society (i.e. there is no 'TRUE' knowledge, only what people percieve that they know) and since homophobia is used primarily within society to refer to a variety of things including 'anti-homosexualism', the Wiki should reflect this knowledge. Anti-choice redirects to Pro-life, and so it should. Even though it is quite arguable that they are two completely different things they are essentially the same thing, it's just that one is used more frequently than the other (Pro-life, that is) so the one used LESS frequently used redirects to the one used MORE frequently used. Why is this debate not turning out the same way? Probably because some people feel a linguistic imperative to associate homophobia with an actual FEAR, even though the common use of the word does not play out this out. Let's take the word hydrophobia as an example. Hydrophobia does not refer to a FEAR of water (yes, it goes to a disambig page, but if Wikipedia wishes to stay consistent, it really shouldn't). It's the medical term for rabies. Should we create a hydrophobia article or redirect the link to aquaphobia because we must insist that hydroPHOBIA MUST refer to a FEAR of water? Certainly not. This article is a POV fork resulting from an insecurity some people have with being called homoPHOBIC if they have a prejudice against homosexuals (for WHATEVER the reason). The fact is that common parlance has used the term in this fashion. Therefore, Wikipedia should reflect that. Not some idea of a 'correct' term or definition based upon its linguistics. No such 'correct' definition exists. As I have said, some of the content of this article IS valuable. But it should be merged and redirected, not kept as a fork. CaveatLectorTalk 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, NPOV is dead as a doornail if we are going to commit to a term which is the subject of POV bias in the real world. The suggested "new" term is perhaps uncommon, but is demonstrated to be not unknown, and it is certainly neutral. I say that this is good enough, and that the division between the two articles affords the possibility of real neutrality. The single article does not. Mangoe 21:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that there is no true knowledge is merely a commitment to yet another POV, and in this context, a bad one. And you've neatly skipped over one of the two central objections: that the assertion of "common parlance" is original research-- namely, it's you presumably appealing to your own experience. I don't have that experience; I have the "it's the pet phrase of one faction and rejected by the other" experience. The homophobia article, most of the time, admits of this, though it is heavily edited to keep that mention to the slightest possible.
- Your counterexamples are bad and misrepresent the coinage of homophobia-- which again I must point out is a matter of documented fact; the citation is, at this instant, in the third footnote in Weinberg's very first sentence. He intended it to mean exactly what the naive reader would guess; he states this bluntly and without room for equivocation. The dispute and POV-pushing from that point on are familiar, leading to the current situation in which Weinberg's meaning and a supposedly more general meaning (but which critics would say is contaminated by the original meaning) try to live side by side in the article.
- I don't think we must be trapped by this state of confusion into writing something that is similarly confused. The other term may not be widely used, but it is there and it offers an opening for clarity. (The claims that it is a neologism have been demonstrated incorrect, after all.) It's easy enough for someone who is used to using "homophobia" in the more general sense to be directed to the other article. And I think the implication that there's something wrong with Wikipedia somehow influencing readers to stop using homophobia in the general sense is unjustified. Right now you are essentially settling for the position that we need to reinforce the confused usage by respecting it-- well, not rigorously, because the end result certainly isn't rigor, but out of sense of mechanical principle rather than out of sense of superior explanation. Mangoe 05:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that the usuage of homophobia in common parlance is 'confused' is outright linguistically descriptive nonsense (sorry, but it is). Words do not have ESSENTIAL meanings, they only have the meanings that the society they are used in gives them. This is NOT a POV. This is a linguistic and literary FACT. To suppose that there is some sort of 'right' usage of a word and that a COMMON usage of the word is somehow 'wrong' or 'misguided' or 'confused' reeks of a philosophy guided by some sort of cultural superiority complex. The idea that recognizing a word's definition in common parlance is original research is complete bollocks, considering the comparative results from a mere Google search, much less a search through scholarly databases and journals, of homophobia and 'anti-homosexualism'. Also, Weinburg should not enter into a discussion of what homophobia MEANS other than to acknowledge why and how he coined it (NOT to proclaim his coinage as some sort of 'correct' definition of the word. His authority there expired as soon as the word entered common language). The fact of the matter is that there is no superior explanation in creating TWO articles, ONE for 'homophobia' and one for 'anti-homosexulism'. All this does is serve to CONFUSE the readers of the Wiki and advance the POV that these two terms somehow describe two different things (when common parlance has it that they do not). In the end, I am afraid I just have to state my belief that you are just resolutely incorrect when you say that Wikipedia should 'influence readers to stop using homophobia in the general sense'. There are plenty of WP:NOT pages, but one thing that an ENCYCLOPEDIA certainly IS NOT is a dogmatic excercise in pushing particular views of what words mean. It is meant to 'encircle all knowledge'. To split something that is seen as ONE concept within most of the English speaking world into TWO articles is to push the POV that the common use of the word is somehow 'incorrect', and is, to be flatly honest, downright ridiculous. CaveatLectorTalk 06:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You say "FACT"; I say, your evidence for "common parlance" is your own, one-POV-identified community. I find people using homophobia in both ways, and I especially see people using it with the denotation you assert and the connotation of what the etymology implies and the coiner intended. And I find a lot of people avoiding the word, for this very reason. Talking about "most of the English-speaking world" is at best dubious and at worst a refusal to acknowledge sociental divisions that are measured with great accuracy at every election.
- Wikipedia cannot avoid being "a dogmatic exercise in pushing particular views of what words mean". The very basis of the conflict here is controlling whether Wikipedia authorizes anti-homosexualism as a name for one phenomenon. Mangoe 12:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, I don't think it would be very civil of wikipedia to take a stance that gaybashing is acceptable, either. Which is infact one of the big reasons that people avoid 'homophobia', a desire to not admit that they think homosexuality is wrong. Despite, y'know, the bonobos, and the general failure of 'corrective' courses. LinaMishima 13:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So let's hold on a moment here. You just said that you find people using 'homophobia' in BOTH contexts...so isn't creating an entirely different word in order to split off one of those meanings a POV fork? You also now claim that Wikipedia IS a place that pushes a particular VIEW of what words mean. Doesn't that very idea violate WP:NPOV? I am NOT arguing that 'anti-homosexualism' does not mean 'being against homosexuals' (I mean, to be frank and French, no shit...), what I am saying is that concept is already described by the word 'homophobia', and to say 'No no no, all of you who are using that way are WRONG' by creating a seperate article for the concept is to push a POV. CaveatLectorTalk 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely. Thank you, CL. I've never argued that there was only one meaning for "homophobia"; there are many usage, as is true with many words in English. Wikipeda should be reporting on those. Mangoe accuses us of thinking that somehow influencing readers to stop using homophobia in the general sense is unjustified. But this is precisely the point of WP:POV and WP:OR. Clearing up lingustic confusion is not our goal (never mind that the "coiner" of a word has no control over how it is used later!). Reporting accurately on the meanings of words (read: usage, of all stripes, not the meanings we think they should have) is the best we can do. bikeable (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, I don't think it would be very civil of wikipedia to take a stance that gaybashing is acceptable, either. Which is infact one of the big reasons that people avoid 'homophobia', a desire to not admit that they think homosexuality is wrong. Despite, y'know, the bonobos, and the general failure of 'corrective' courses. LinaMishima 13:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a POV fork. Yes, Wikipedia is an agency in the control of the meaning of words, and no, this isn't intrinsically a POV issue (although in this case we both recognize, or should, that it is related to one of the POV divisions). If public discourse is dominated by weasel words on the one hand and/or slurs on the other, it's bloody obvious that a supposedly NPOV reference has to avoid popularly understood language. Since the controversy over the article consistently centers on exactly those concerns, it is entirely reasonable to fork the current content into two subjects-- NOT points of view, because they aren't. If your point of view on the subjects is to prevail, it can do so when they are kept distinct. People would approach two articles with distinct POVs, and would argue about each as before. I think the argument in anti-homosexualism would probably relax some because the fact of bigotry and its expressions are more or less a matter of simple historical documentation. Conversely the argument over the phobic origin of antipathy to homosexuality might increase, but it might also improve in quality when it cannot hide behind the more general issue.
- The sentence that you, User:Bikeable, quote is not the clearest thing I've ever written, I grant you, but in any case you've parsed it out incorrectly. If I'm accusing you of anything (and can we Wikipedia:Assume good faith?), it is of believing that "there's something wrong with Wikipedia somehow influencing readers to stop using 'homophobia' in the general sense." If we use parlance here which is clearer that popular discourse, and popular discourse evolves to reflect the change, that's not a bad thing. Mangoe 16:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mangoe, I didn't mean "accuse" in any particularly bad way; sorry. I understood you properly, I think. I agree that wikipedia should help with clarity, of course: we can make sure people understand what a word means (although this is really the function of a dictionary, and wp's purpose goes deeper). However, when a word has multiple meanings in common use, we should not be attempting to reassign one (or more) of those meanings to another word, even for the sake of clarity. For example, "moot" has two nearly opposed meanings ("open to debate" and, more recently, "not worth discussion"). Even if the latter is a confused usage of the former, it's not our place to correct the usage, but only to report on it. I think the is the issue we have here. (Incidentally, we should copy this discussion to Talk:Homophobia after the AfD, as it's an interesting recap of a lot of points regularly brought up there.) bikeable (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of "moot" the discussion would of necessity have to split, but within a single article. But the issue here is beyond simple definition, which is the entire issue with "moot".
- Mangoe, I didn't mean "accuse" in any particularly bad way; sorry. I understood you properly, I think. I agree that wikipedia should help with clarity, of course: we can make sure people understand what a word means (although this is really the function of a dictionary, and wp's purpose goes deeper). However, when a word has multiple meanings in common use, we should not be attempting to reassign one (or more) of those meanings to another word, even for the sake of clarity. For example, "moot" has two nearly opposed meanings ("open to debate" and, more recently, "not worth discussion"). Even if the latter is a confused usage of the former, it's not our place to correct the usage, but only to report on it. I think the is the issue we have here. (Incidentally, we should copy this discussion to Talk:Homophobia after the AfD, as it's an interesting recap of a lot of points regularly brought up there.) bikeable (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In effect you are advocating that Wikipedia commit to what you claim (and lots of people dispute): that homophobia means anti-homosexualism, and without the connotation of mental disorder as a cause. In practice the article is and is not edited this way, because it tends to reflect the connotation attached to phobias, and because the considerable denunciation of the term as reflecting this connotation is played down as much as can be gotten way with. What we get is an article which tends to assume that fixing homophobia-- which is to say, opposition to homosexuality-- is a matter of psychological treatment or at least conditioning.
- That's where the POV-pushing comes in, and why people who object to homosexuality see a biased article. It's a subject of controversy whether the word even has two distinct meanings, or whether its generalized meaning is simply people who believe it is a phobia getting sloppy and political. At any rate, I disagree that people are going to be so confused at going to homophobia and finding themselves directed to another place to read about one aspect of it-- even one which they consider the primary aspect.
- Compared to the mess I'm having to deal with in railway signalling, this is a piece of cake. In that subject, American and British practices have evolved so separately that term-for-term substitution often isn't possible (as in the rail siding versus passing loop issue). Earlier in the summer, we had a big battle because the category of "locomotive engineers" had been created-- to tag people who designed locomotives, and not people who operated them (the American meaning). When I tried to change this to a more universally intelligible label, "locomotive designers", there was an uproar from some of the British contingent, who would not give up their term. Eventually, the need for an unambiguous term prevailed, leaving us with the possibility that Wikipedia may lead Brits to switch to American usage, but it's something we'll just have to live with. Mangoe 18:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems as though you feel that the term homophobia in all its uses will always and forever be connected with a psychological condition. But, then again, so is racism in some aspects (being an '-ism'), and that does not even have a 'phobia' attached to it. Should those who object to such a 'negative' term for their beliefs be allowed to create an article entitled 'anti-African-Americanism' because they view an article on 'racism' as biased? This is a very simple issue, Mangoe, and your example actually clarifies what must be done here. What we have here is a group of people who are upset that a word that might be considered disparaging and its common usage (also disparaging) might refer to them. Now, the goal is to split this word into TWO words, and pretend as though the first word does not refer to what it actually refers to in common knowledge. I will say this again, because it bares being said over and over again. Wikipedia is not the place to push for a particular meaning for a word. One side of this debate wishes to acknowledge that a word has multiple meanings in common parlance. Most of the other side of the debate is getting red-faced at the possibility that they are inherently being called this word, screaming 'POV' and trying to create a fork that doesn't even come close to reflecting knowledge and usage. (I would like to make a special note here that not all of those who support this side are homophobic. I tried to say that with 'most' but I realize it might be interpreted that way. It's entirely possible some want to include the fork based on a difference in philosophy regarding WP:NPOV and not because they are homophobes.) One of these sides is POV pushing. It is not the first one. In your example, you would not abide the creation of two seperate catagories to express the same profession because one group was upset by one of the terms. That is ludicrous. NPOV does not mean that the wiki should be modified from what it is meant to encompass (knoweldge and uses) in order that some people might not get offended. CaveatLectorTalk 19:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No amount of you repeating it is going to get rid of the reality that entries in Wikipedia are going to be used, and more or less correctly as that sort of thing goes, as a normative authority on what the words mean. Therefore it is not possible to assign names to articles and at the same time avoid pushing for particular meanings.
- In your abandoment of good faith you've asserted that the rewritten homophobia would not even mention what you claim is the most common meaning of the word. I don't see you you can successfully defend that claim, if only because (in the event you don't prevail) you and a host of others are going to make absolutely sure that the one article refers prominently to the other. And so will I, for that matter. Splitting the issue across two articles is not going to prevent anyone from getting his or her points in, except for the connotation issue which you claim isn't really there anyway, so it wouldn't hurt your POV to have a structure which discouraged it.
- It isn't just myself who refused two categories in the locomotive designer incident, but the rest of the community. It went up for a RfM, and my position prevailed. I don't recall whether two (redundant) categories was considered, but I suspect that if it had been proposed someone would have shot it down as a POV fork (which it would have been). Mangoe 21:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CaveatLector hits the nail on the head when they say that homophobia really is an "ism", only named as such due to the complete awkwardness and lack of clarity in any possible names (homosexualism? Sexualitism? high-kinsey-scoreism?). This is what homophobia is recognised as, not a phobia. Yes, the word sucks, but anti-homosexualism is even more disjointed (anti-race? anti-coloured? anti-women?), and it really is not wikipedia's place to try and promote society to find a new word for something. As I've already hinted at, POV pushing runs both ways in this matter. Homophobia is seen as being "pro-gay", or at least not supportive of the voiced objections to sexuality. And quite frankly, Racism takes a similar, correct (civil, non-attacking stance. Anti-homophobia seems to be a term prefered by those who are seemingly "anti-gay", who would rather avoid the negative consequences of such a title. That's not to say that the current article is not nuetral, it's been well written. Whilst it is wrong to arbitarilly label peple as homophobic, I can see that if this article remains, attempts will occur to change any mentions of someone being 'homophobic', often even those straight out of a reference, over to the far kinder and less inflamatory (and hence more accepting) term of anti-homophobia. To finish, I'll repeat: homophobia is an 'ism', just like racism LinaMishima 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per
User:Flying Jazzand Mangoe -it's certainly not a neologism (or at least, it's an older one than homophobia) and given the debate than Mangoe points to regarding homophobia, maybe this should be the main article. Armon 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Struck thru user:Flying Jazz as he/she has changed vote to Weak Redirect. Marcus22 08:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, if it weren't a neologism I'd say redirect to Homophobia. HGB 22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Redirect I am changing my opinion from Keep to Weak Redirect. The primary (actually, the only) editor who contributed to this article has left Wikipedia without replying to my suggestions for improvements on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, without this editor taking suggestions from the community or even replying to them, I think this article will stagnate in its current form, and in its current form it is too POV to continue in the encyclopedia. For now, the word should redirect to homophobia. I hope a future editor creates a new anti-homosexualism article that is encyclopedic. I copied the article's content to User_talk:Britcom/Anti-homosexualism. My apologies to the administrator if this was the wrong thing for me to do. Flying Jazz 02:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep, seems verified and npov. Seems a debate that the closing admin will have to really look into. ~ct.e 21:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Votes Well I make it 7 for Delete (including Nom.); 5 for Keep (which includes one weak keep and two votes from 'unknown' (red) users); 3 for Redirect (including one weak redirect); 1 Merge; 1 undecided and 1 Rename. Divisive huh? Anyone I've missed or anyone care to change their votes to get a clear consensus? Marcus22 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Founder of the website Moab World (which has no traffic ranking), and the "not so famous" Moab band, "The Shed" says it all. Punkmorten 08:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO. Wickethewok 13:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Typical nn- vanity. -- RHaworth 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuicetalk 15:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. No real claim to notability. The closest it comes is: "The New York Times has reportedly called the Zumbyes "the most dangerous acapella group" but this has yet to be confirmed." savidan(talk) (e@) 09:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge — per above. clearly fails WP:MUSIC as most of these college groups do Peripitus (Talk) 13:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No verifiable sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups Mangojuicetalk 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. No real claim to notability other than a trivial reference to some of their lyrics in an alleged book about college culture. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuicetalk 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to any notability at all outside of their campus. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a lot of girls at Dartmouth know the Octet pretty well, savidan...
- Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No third-party sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuicetalk 15:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
College a cappella group which fails WP:MUSIC. Travelling with the school's glee club and collaborating with other non-notable groups is not a claim to fame. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ok for an entry in the list above and/or in some part in university page, but IMHO it is not a merge. Cate 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
College a cappella group which fails WP:MUSIC. Claims to have sold 100,000 cds but there is no verifiable, third party source for this. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that this is not a collegiate a cappella group. Did you read the article? Jesuschex 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I did. It's in Category:Collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also in Category:Professional a cappella groups, and as far as I can tell, those two are (or should be) mutually exclusive. It was put in collegiate by an editor who was removing a copyvio. I'll fix it. Jesuschex 03:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I did. It's in Category:Collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't think WP:MUSIC is a problem; they've toured, they've been independently reviewed. They have one album on a label, and some self-released ones, but A Capella is somewhat out of the mainstream, so I think we could stand to be flexible. I don't see this article making Wikipedia more indiscriminate in its selection of topics. Mangojuicetalk 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you getting this "independently reviewe" claim from? There are no sources in the article. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. While notability might be sufficient, I am more concerned about the complete absence of any reputable third-party sources to verify. I just feel that any group worthy of its own encyclopedia article should have at least one good source other than its own website and a nearly blank listing at AMG (which is not restricted to notable bands). If someone can provide, I am happy to change my opinion. --Satori Son 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I don't see an issue here. They have an amg entry, all of their cds are in stock in amazon[23], 8 hits about them on google news. Doesn't seem like a random garage band to me. - Bobet 14:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups (might as well). Mangojuicetalk 15:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
College a cappella group that doesn't even attempt to make a claim that would satisfy WP:MUSIC savidan(talk) (e@) 09:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This page contains no false information, and as a specific independent organization I think The New Blue merits its own individual page. The New Blue already has an entry in the list of collegiate a cappella groups, so merging it with that list would simply mean deleting this page. That list functions as a portal to other wikipedia pages and websites that elaborate on each a cappella groups. Such elaboration may be larging lacking on The New Blue page at this time, but as a stub it is implied that in the future more information will be added to the New Blue page. I don't agree with WP:MUSIC so I will not attempt to explain why this page should exist according to those guidelines. Why limit accurate, non-distracting, non-overlapping information?
- As long as you are not disputing that the page doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, I won't argue with you. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not making any claims about this article's validity according to WP:MUSIC.
- Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC, and even stubs must have third-party sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to List of collegiate a capella groups (might as well). Mangojuicetalk 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
College a cappella group which doesn't meet the standards of WP:MUSIC. The first nomination, which was closed as no consensus, contained such gems as "Sorry if you Wikipedia snobs think that it is unworthy." savidan(talk) (e@) 09:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, unless every collegiate a cappella group is deleted as well. The "some are more notable than others" argument is exceptionally weak, even in the case of the Whiffenpoofs. No one outside of a cappella and New Haven knows who they are, even the presidents they've sung for. --SparqMan 16:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a rationale for keep. I've nominated a lot of less-than-notable a cappella groups for deletion. If you think there are others that don't meet the standards, nominate them for deletion. If all the other articles jumped off a bridge...you get the picture. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Armon 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JPD (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List cruft. I did begin to wikify this article, but none of these companies have articles about them that I could find (I only looked for the first 40 or so!). I don't feel this adds anything, unless someone feels like writing articles for all the companys. Ladybirdintheuk 09:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was deleted via proposed deletion in May 2006 on the grounds that Category:Construction equipment manufacturers did the task better. Uncle G 14:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing beyond the category. Pavel Vozenilek 19:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does nothing that the category can't do. --Richhoncho 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. DOES do something the category can't do: encourage new articles we don't want. Mangojuicetalk 15:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article written in Italian that has not been translated despite being tagged on 6 August. There is a note on the talk page to say that a corresponding article on the Italian wiki was deleted as self promoting spam. I guess we don't really need to keep this as it is and there seems to be no effort to improve it so I suggest we Delete it. Spartaz 09:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Victoriagirl 23:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The page fails to meet the “Verifiability” and “Reliable sources” requirements of the encyclopedia. I have deleted it. —Encephalon 11:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by anon without explanation. My original prod said "Probably a vanity creation. In any case fails WP:WEB quite clearly." Pascal.Tesson 10:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable sources given. Googling is less than helpful. Wickethewok 13:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod; a reason for contesting was given on Talk:Maplewiki (effectively the Pokemon test), but I disagree; Alexa worse than 1000000, no real assertions of notability. --ais523 10:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - No secondary sources given/found. Less than 40 unique google hits. Wickethewok 13:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources WilyD 14:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to reattach this to Mapletip.com, the maplewiki.net domain was RECENTLY purchased as you can see on Whois, therefore the Alexa ranking is DEFINETLY low. And also, unique google hits will also be low due to the newness. When Maplewiki was attached to Mapletip, it obtained MANY articles with many people helping every day. But now, you are going with a new domain that was recently purchased for Maplewiki. Please reconsider. Sources, are of coures in the Maplewiki itself.
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: MAPLEWIKI.NET Created on: 18-Aug-06 Expires on: 18-Aug-07 Last Updated on: 19-Aug-06
-- Mapletip 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that still fails WP:V - which cannot be overcome by editor's concensus. WilyD 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so you mean the articles itself are unreliable as in no sources? If you're talking about the monster database the source is Mapletip itself, which is very relibale as we have built it ourselves. Please before you delete tell me what is 'unreliable'. 68.78.148.16 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:RS and WP:V if it's unclear to you , but the articles doesn't cite any reliable, third party sources. In general, Maplewiki is not an authenticating source. WilyD 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, delete it for now, I will remake the article when we fix the issue. Mapletip 18:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to verify any of the details prevented on the Black River House website and other pages written by the site's owner through independent sources. No other articles on the Marchant case, even eleven years after the site claims the news broke upon the public, despite the highly sensational nature of the incident. No other articles on the dramatic and enigmatic disappearance of the band The Secret Method. No other articles on 2005 suicide at the house, aside from a PDF copy of a BBC article which may not be written in a professional tone and cannot now be located on the BBC website proper. Town of Kildubhan, Ireland does not appear to exist outside of references to the site. Book which the site's author claims to have written, published by Random House, does not appear to exist; should be some reference even if the edition was limited. Very probable hoax or publicity stunt. -- PegasusGrrl 11:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable, and probable marketing gimmick --Aim Here 10:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it stands. However there is so much in it if anything were true and verifiable it might make an article of some sort. Nigel (Talk) 13:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pretty clear hoaxvertisement. Robertissimo 02:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod (no reason given for contesting). Neologism and blatant advertising; needs serious cleanup if kept. --ais523 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Ridiculous advertising. Wickethewok 13:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - with that number of links to their own website 100% pure. Nigel (Talk) 13:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete, complete and utter ad-copy based on vendor buzzword/neologism. There's quite simply no such term. Kuru talk 13:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - pure spam. --Quiddity 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as failing WP:MUSIC. I also nominate his band Smash-Up Derby. The band does not appear to have toured or had any records released per criteria laid down in WP:MUS. Only trace is a demo record. No entry on allmusic. The entry for Smash-Up Derby was created by Adrian Roberts. Ohconfucius 10:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - Would you mind throwing in DJs Adrian & the Mysterious D in this nom as well? Wickethewok 13:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I also nominate DJs Adrian & the Mysterious D. Three for the price of one. Ohconfucius 15:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as vanity. Recury 19:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete no notability as a musician asserted. Pascal.Tesson 11:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to Sombrero Galaxy. JPD (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This object may not exist. A detailed explaination is presented on the Sombrero Galaxy page under "Environment". Basically, some papers using one group identification method have determined that M104 is part of a group (references include the Nearby Galaxy Catalogue by B. Tully, Groups of galaxies within 80 Mpc. II - The catalogue of groups and group members by P. Fouque et al., and Nearby Optical Galaxies: Selection of the Sample and Identification of Groups by G. Giuricin et al.) whereas other group identification methods have determined that M104 is not (references include General study of group membership. II - Determination of nearby groups by A. Garcia and Nearby Optical Galaxies: Selection of the Sample and Identification of Groups by G. Giuricin et al.). The creator of the article used this page within the Atlas of the Universe website to create this page but misunderstood the reference, which did not place M104 within a group. The Atlas of the Universe website itself does not definitively state whether M104 belongs in a group; two different pages within it contain contradictory information. (Note that the Atlas of the Universe website uses the Tully, Fouque et al., Garcia, and Giuricin et al. references given above. The original references are more useful than the Atlas of the Universe website.) Since it is unclear as to whether a "M104 group" exists and since this is already discussed thoroughly in the Sombrero Galaxy article, the M104 group of galaxies article should be deleted. George J. Bendo 10:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect If its discussed thoroughly elsewhere than the article should point in that direction/ --Spartaz 10:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect the whole group of galaxies (presumably to Sombrero Galaxy). Could we relocate them as well? Dlyons493 Talk 11:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting M104 group of galaxies to the Sombrero Galaxy would be OK, but the other galaxies in the tenuously-identified group should be left unchanged. NGC 4487, NGC 4504, NGC 4802, and UGCA 289 are different objects from the Sombrero Galaxy; redirecting searches on those galaxies to the Sombrero Galaxy would give the incorrect impression that those galaxies' names are valid names for the Sombrero Galaxy and would thus cause confusion. George J. Bendo 12:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since those articles don't exist, it shouldn't be a problem. Yomanganitalk 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting M104 group of galaxies to the Sombrero Galaxy would be OK, but the other galaxies in the tenuously-identified group should be left unchanged. NGC 4487, NGC 4504, NGC 4802, and UGCA 289 are different objects from the Sombrero Galaxy; redirecting searches on those galaxies to the Sombrero Galaxy would give the incorrect impression that those galaxies' names are valid names for the Sombrero Galaxy and would thus cause confusion. George J. Bendo 12:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the Sombrero Galaxy article discusses whether that galaxy should be regarded as being in a group - it isn't directly analogous to this article as it has no discussion of the legitimacy of the "M104 group" title. Redirecting would not be correct as it would suggest that the M104 group was a recognised entity (plus it has no main space links and isn't a likely search term anyway). There may be a possibility for a valid article about the existence of an M104 group to be created, but this article is poorly titled, uncited and factually lacking. Yomanganitalk 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons given above. (I should have voted earlier. I guess it is implicit in the nomination, but it is good to be explicit.) George J. Bendo 14:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect if the topic may be looked up by someone, we should point to a place where the existence is disputed, otherwise, the article will probably just get created again in the future. This way we keep the history of why no article. WilliamKF 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sombrero Galaxy per WilliamKF. Chaos syndrome 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per WilliamKF.--Planetary 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. We are not yet become Binky, destroyer of galaxies. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect somebody could redirect this into Sombrero Galaxy or Destroyer of galaxies. That would be good ideas to redirect into those two I've mentioned. Daniel's page ☎ 01:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all. {{afd}} was not added to the articles on the compilation albums, which makes the deletion of those articles somewhat tenuous - in the past, deletion review has undeleted articles when they were deleted in group nominations but the AfD tag was not added, on the basis that the tag is there so everyone involved in the article can be properly informed. However, the notability of the albums is obviously dependant on the company, therefore deleting the main article and not the sub-articles would be nonsensical, and using PROD or another AfD would be an obvious waste of everyone's time. So I'm going to invoke WP:IAR and delete them anyway. But please remember in future that all articles nominated for deletion must have an {{afd}} tag added, which can then be edited so it points to the group nomination. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of a small independent record label which appears to fail WP:CORP. Also nominated are the compilation albums it has released :
- Greetings From NorCal- The Northern California Compilation,
- Agent Records Presents The NorCal Compilation 2003,
- Agent Records Presents The NorCal Compilation 2004,
- Agent Records Presents The NorCal Compilation 2005
The label scores 404 unique Ghits out of 46,300 for "Agent records" + label, most of for generic terms, also picked up "Free Agent records", "Double Agent records", "Secret Agent records", "Smooth Agent records" in abundance. Company;s website has no Alexa rank. No independent info available about the outfit per WP:V. Ohconfucius 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All No assertion of notability, and if almost none of the artists on these albums are notable enough for an article, why would these compilations themselves be notable? Resolute 00:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per Resolute. --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all nn. Mukadderat 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this may effectively be advertising. Speedy delete removed as was prod. Although improved and has Ghits still reads like PR for company, opinions sought Nigel (Talk) 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nonnotable record label. It's mentioned just once (The Toasters) in the whole encyclopedia. No backlinks. (The "Main article: History of Disc Makers" is a joke, right?) No demand for an advertisement with personal histories and a detailed listing of services that parrots http://www.discmakers.com/music/whydm/history.asp. Femto 13:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn. I do like how they linked "in-house graphic design" though. Now I know what a house is! Recury 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep (and clean up). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Was previously tagged as a speedy deletion. I was apprehensive about Googling this one, but it appears to turn up a relevant news report on google about how they gave into Islamist demands. (I'm still not sure how islam and brothels can mix) Might be borderline notable although that would require a keep and cleanup. - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, few sources about the place itself, a handful more about the controversy, but it was international in scope. --Dhartung | Talk 00:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the fact that brothel's and Islam shouldn't mix adds to the notability; the average brothel in Hamburg, Amsterdam, or Nevada is a yawner. Carlossuarez46 20:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, rename to official name of the business notable controversy, but the title is misleading. I understand the joke, but it is also insult. Mukadderat 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am afraid that this subject simply lacks the reference base to support an encyclopedia article. Thus, delete. Regards —Encephalon 11:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod about a non-notable blog. MER-C 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless proof can be provided of it gaining in popularity (I'm not fussed, anyone who can translate a Bahasa Melayu source is welcome to do so and I'll take it in good faith). BigHaz 11:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity spam advertisement. --Ageo020 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not spam blog since it has helped answering questions from both local and foreign students. Some recent examples include Scoring 1A in SPM Chemistry, Reign226's Guide to Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Read the comments in Contact Us page to read the questions posted by readers. Visit forum post 1 and forum post 2 to read recent questions submitted by the readers although they are unanswered at the moment. However, I can assure you that we try our best to answer questions from the readers as soon as possible. The increasing number of questions asked by the readers indicates that this blog is gaining popularity. Moreover, there are several useful blog posts or original helpful articles on the blog. For example, Post-STPM Guideline, How to Score SPM EST, Updates from the STPM UPU front, STPM Science and Mathematics Subjects – You can answer in Malay until 2007 and Kuok Foundation Undergraduate Awards. Cupid9 15:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - obviously no assertion of notability in the article, and I guess there is no notability guidelines for blogs, as they are non-notable per se.
- PS. God forbid we start featuring articles on "notable blogs". Pokemons are enough. Bravada, talk - 17:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Bobet 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax, google turns up 0 hits for the show and the alleged actors. Riley O'Harris, created by the same user, has been speedied already. Cactus.man ✍ 11:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a variety of searches on variations of the title and the actors turned up nothing. Would be delighted to see any actual verification of any of the article. Kuru talk 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged as speedy A7 but it's not a person or group and prodded for "being not famous enough" which is not a valid deletion criterion. Alexa rank is approx. 1.1 million, but the site appears to have had press attention. They boast as seen/heard on PBS, CNN, etc. on their main site. It might be salvagable, perhaps even for the concept of online lunch money alone. No vote. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 12:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there's spam in those sandwiches. No evidence presented of this meeting WP:WEB. Guy 13:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it doesn't read like spam, IMO, but it's still NN. Alexa's never heard of them, one google news result for a local newspaper in Virginia. -- Vary | Talk 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn. Being mentioned in passing on a TV channel as a piece of fluff filler does not equal notability. --Aaron 22:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a memorial. This is a sad tale but not in any way unique; also an "inspirational young basketball player" who died aged 11 having suffered from leukaemia for three of those years is not a particularly plausible claim. No sources. Sole claim to notability is a single human interest story on ESPN. Just zis Guy you know? 11:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Tonywalton | Talk 13:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Aaron 20:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Resolute 00:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a hoax. Most of the text of this article is copied from http://www.eurocouncil.org/, which doesn't look like website of serious international organization. I can't find any other reference to this group. When you google "The European Council" TEC – it turns up a lot of results, but TEC means Treaty establishing the European Community, so it seems that all the results refer to the European Council. --Filemon 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Philemon is clearly excessive in his highly biased "entry-cleansing" zeal: to me, this looks like any other European think-tank albeit an embryonic one, because it was founded quite recently.
Plus TEC clearly claims to be "independent and research-oriented" which removes all ambiguity and/or risk of it being confused with an official EU ministry or department.
I think we should definitely keep this entry.
Maybe Philemon (who seems to be a rightwing Polish irredentist...) doesn't like these guys because their vision of Europe includes Russia?.
- I’ve just read some of Filemon’s “contributions”: qualifies as overtly rightwing and nationalist.
- Hence the distrust for perceived enemies of Greater Poland such as EU “bureaucrats” and Russian “Cossacks”.
- Plus ça change…. --DrVega2
The two user accounts (Solferino and DrVega2) were created today, slightly after user Saint Germain (creator of this article) tried to remove AfD notice from the article. Solferino and DrVega2 removed AfD notice too, making completely false allegations. It is quite obvious that these users are sockpuppets of user Saint-Germain, who tries to defend his hoax. --Filemon 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. There is nothing I have found which would allow me to distinguish between this alleged think tank organisation and the Council of the European Union. There is no evidence whatsoever it would pass WP:ORG. Assertion is not properly asserted IMHO: the only hint of it is when the author inserted "dedicated to innovative research and analysis" without substantiating how innovative it actually is. The org's own website is but a holding page. I would consider that at best, it clearly fails WP:V. Ohconfucius 08:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, completely non-notable. —Nightstallion (?) 19:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly no organization would in their right mind choose such a misleading name. Hoax. All three users should be banned for weak attempt at sockpuppetry and defamation of Filemon. Pascal.Tesson 22:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong suspicion of a hoax per lack of Google hits. AfD instead of prod because I want more eyes on it in case this is real. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as failing WP:V - I can't find anything on either. Yomanganitalk 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per above. The purported invention sounds like a Pocket door, and they've been around since long before the first westerner set foot in New Zealand. Fan-1967 02:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Tyrenius 00:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable (even optional) town from Final Fantasy VII with little relevence to the overall storyline. Also contains a fair bit of fanon. Exists in as much detail as really needed on List of Final Fantasy VII locations Made2Fade 12:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete List of FF7 locations blurb suffices as mention. ColourBurst 14:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tyyu6 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I love FF as much as anybody but this is pure cruft.--65.16.61.35 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The stuff in the list article is plenty. Recury 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. If there aren't any other articles on FF7 locations, there's no reason for Wutai to be singled out. The existing List article is good enough (although I'm voting Weak Delete because there is precedent set by Star Wars, Star Trek and Doctor Who articles for separate articles to exist for locations. But unless someone does all the FF7 towns, having just one featured doesn't make a lot of sense (and whether FF7 is notable enough to warrant location articles is a matter for another debate). 23skidoo 01:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there is an article for Midgar, and I think it's a notable enough location to have an article of its own, in that quite a large part of the game happens there and it's a big place of which you can write a lot of stuff about; Wutai, however, is hardly as important location as Midgar. (Scene of two optional subquests - as opposed to some other locations like Nibelheim or Cosmo Canyon that are much more integral to the storyline...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Final Fantasy VII locations. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Bobet 12:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This horribly formatted article appears to me like an advertisement/press release for this organisation. A Google search for the exact name puts out 647 results, which is very little; ergo, I think the relevance of this organisation for an encyclopaedia is very low. Since its inception, the article had 19 edits, all but two of them by one user, MGBlankenship --Florian Prischl 12:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Straight copyvio of chunks of a website, such as this. Site claims "Copyright 2006 Friendship Industries". Too late for a {{db-copyvio}} tag. Since it's here I won't go the {{copyvio}} route. Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 14:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per above Subwayguy 03:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ "Drivers To Be Smarter With SpeedAlert Software". AusIndustry. 20 March 2006.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: year (link) - ^ "THE COOL COMPANY AWARDS". Australian Anthill. 1 August 2006.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: year (link) - ^ "Secrets of Australian ICT Innovation Competition". IT Secrets. 10 April 2006.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: year (link) - ^ "successful e-entrepreneurs". MyBusiness. 1 July 2006.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: year (link)