Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 18
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Appropriate Username (talk | contribs) at 09:46, 18 April 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< April 17 | > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 09:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found this under recent changes. Looks like it needs to be deleted. It's impossible to verify and very misogynistic. Erik the Rude 00:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating The Tony Danza (sex move). It's an exact copy. Erik the Rude 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Another, similiar article was also deleted, this one can go too. Transfinite 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If Transfinite is correct, this can be Speedy Deleted as recreation of previously deleted material. If not, it is a definitely strong delete. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tony Danza sex move, deleted yesterday. -- Saberwyn 03:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Was previously part of Donkey Punch but was removed during an edit war. Should be remerged. — Linnwood 01:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please... only if externally verifiable information can be provided from reliable, third-party sources. -- Saberwyn 03:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete this crap. u p p l a n d 03:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. Some of the "see also" articles aren't very good either. They are fake sexual practices, even if a person, or a couple of people, did it once. It is particularly improbable that donkey punching is practiced with any kind of frequency (porn simulations aside). -- Kjkolb 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 05:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google gives me nothing. Seems made up. Fagstein 05:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete CSD G4 as recreation of The Tony Danza sex move. Should not be merged or redirected to any other article since it is not WP:V. Шизомби 06:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per above--Mboverload 06:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete g4.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete CSD G4 -- Samir (the scope) 08:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 11:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the english version translation of the Spanish webcomic Picapolla y Chocholoco seen here. They are both hosted on the same domain, and that domain comes back with an Alexa rank of 350,000. Note that the webcomic is not the only thing at that domain. "Picapolla y Chocholoco" gives just over 70 links and the word touchyball gives back 12 links. I do not think that either the Spanish webcomic nor the English translation is notable. However, if it is kept, I strongly suggest having the article under the original spanish name. - Hahnchen 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Picapolla y Chocholoco, the Spanish webcomic version appears notable enough with the Google search. AndyZ t 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- Move per AndyZ. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 05:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move, per CyberSkull..-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Picapolla y Chocholoco. --Terence Ong 10:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Knucmo2 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move- notability isn't really a concern; "sum total of human knowledge" and all that. But there's no reason to treat it as separate from the Spanish language edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainktainer (talk • contribs)
- Your position is admirable, but it's against policy. Fagstein 18:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 'not notable' is not part of the deletion criteria. This article is at least stub quality, and does not violate any policies, therefore it is worth keeping. Cynical 18:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article is written by a User:Ccbaxter, the webcomic author, probably as a vanity or promotional piece. Having an entry on Wikipedia's list of webcomics seems to be a must these days for any old webcomic. - Hahnchen 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the 'vanity prohibition' has been routinely violated by Jimbo (among lots of other people), so it's more or less deprecated. Cynical 20:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article is written by a User:Ccbaxter, the webcomic author, probably as a vanity or promotional piece. Having an entry on Wikipedia's list of webcomics seems to be a must these days for any old webcomic. - Hahnchen 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Fagstein. RexNL 19:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, of little consequence. Quatloo 20:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wstaffor 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Fargstein. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Fagstein. -- Dragonfiend 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please keep in mind that this is a non-english website, so there is a bias against it in the counting mechanisms. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the webcomic in question here. Anne Bunny is one of the several webcomics hosted on the Magpie House Designs website. Are they notable? Is this specific comic notable? "Legend of Anne Bunny" gives 36 hits on Google, and "Magpie House Design" gives 23 unique hits. (The reason the latter search gives thousands of none unique hits is due to Google messing up it's forum page caching). Alexa also ranks the site at which it's hosted on at 600,000+. I don't think the entire domain is notable enough for an article, let alone a single webcomic on it. - Hahnchen 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 05:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 10:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Andy123(talk) 12:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Funky Monkey (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup I think that there should be a lot more detail, but I do think it is perfectly notable. Jonathan235 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what? Fagstein 22:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NN. Wstaffor 22:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable webcomic. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:27
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a notable website? Hosted on Comic Genesis, the webcomic can be seen here and is also mirrored on DrunkDuck. The article seems to be written by the webcomic author, Michael Wriston. The website is updated on a random schedule, so that is perhaps why it is not mentioned in the Alexa report for comic genesis. But I just can't find an establishment of notability online, it looks to be one of the thousands of small time webcomics on Comic Genesis. - Hahnchen 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete google says that only 19 sites link to it. Also, per nom. Where (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article even admits it's not notable. Fagstein 05:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Notability non-existent.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 10:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Andy123(talk) 12:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Funky Monkey (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NN. Wstaffor 22:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable webcomic. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:27
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not really a notable church, parishcruft Montco 00:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you are not African American, or is this site not for what is notable for American of African heritage? This is a state of Mississippi Historic site. C. Baker Motley used it a the base of operations during the court sessions to integrate the Law school at Old MS University. Judge Marshall came there to work with other NAACP lawyers. Leontine Price sang there because it was one of a few places where she could sing opera to her own people in the south. It is not a Church but a 65 acre campus. The only place in this country where a Black person could legally walk on the beach or swim in a part of the Gulf of Mexico until after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
It would have been a bit more civilized if I had been allowed to finish writing the article before passing judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLJQuinn (talk • contribs)
sorry am new at this. Jacqui Quinn
- Please assume good faith - WP:AGF ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My criteria for an AfD are based on objective criteria. The retreat has all of 75 unique hits on google. Some of which include:Gulfport Timeshares. There were 2 AP stories, both of which had to do with the rebuilding of the camp. Big deal, lots of stuff has to be rebuilt after the hurricanes. We don't list every apartment building and hotel on the Gulf Coast that was destroyed. I found nothing to assert the sort of notability which you claim for the place. According to the state's historical preservation, there are 588 state historical landmarks in Mississippi. [1] including post offices. Not all of those are notable. Montco 01:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Google may not be the most representative source of information for stuff from the 1950s and 60s. Thatcher131 04:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I would say that by default, a state historical site is notable. I mean, the site has to be historically notable to become a state historical site, no? Roodog2k 23:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. I think, as JLJQuinn shows, the church is indeed notable. THe article needs some cleanup, but presumably that will come in due course. (Jacqui: see your talkpage) Bucketsofg 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and add references - notability established (pending verification) —ERcheck @ 04:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
pending verification; this notable info should be in the articleI have added some refs and done some preliminary cleanup Thatcher131 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Weak keep. 97th historical site of The United Methodist Church doesn't seem all that notable to me though. Fagstein 05:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is as notable as User:JLJQuinn asserts, then it is far from nomninator's parishcruft and must earn a strong keep -- Simon Cursitor 07:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per JLJQuinn; a state historical site should be sufficient for notability, let alone some of the other contributions of this church. Tijuana Brass 07:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable church.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This topic certainly seems worthy of an encyclopedia entry. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. The article certainly could use some cleanup though. NoIdeaNick 09:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable church and cleanup. --Terence Ong 10:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on and assume good faith. :) --Andy123(talk) 12:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems notable but needs verification. Wstaffor 22:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Lets let the author have a chance to get the article written, at least before passing judgement. Also WP:BITE, I think, may be in order. Roodog2k 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, conspicuously notable. If the nominator had the time to work his way through the entire list of Google hits to pick out the isolated timeshare reference in a foolheaded and uncivil attempt to discredit the claim of notability, he or she had the time to read the dozens and dozens of legitimate references which demonstrated notability. Such enthusiasm for a most dubious proposal is disturbing at best. Monicasdude 02:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the tone of this comment and the use of the term "foolheaded. " However, the article was tagged for deletion one hour after JLJQuinn (talk · contribs) started it, and regardless of whatever the nominator found via google, I find that the eighth hit on the first page is a newspaper article that verifies the essential details [2]. I notice that JLQuinn has not edited the article since then; maybe this is just her night out. I hope she hasn't been driven away from the project. Thatcher131 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Montco has apologized on JLQuinn's talk page, which I find commendable. I considered blanking my comment immediately above but I decided to leave it; maybe this episode will give someone else some food for thought too. Thatcher131 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the tone of this comment and the use of the term "foolheaded. " However, the article was tagged for deletion one hour after JLJQuinn (talk · contribs) started it, and regardless of whatever the nominator found via google, I find that the eighth hit on the first page is a newspaper article that verifies the essential details [2]. I notice that JLQuinn has not edited the article since then; maybe this is just her night out. I hope she hasn't been driven away from the project. Thatcher131 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A notable church. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep As per Jacqui Ansell 05:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:27
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Deleted by Geogre with sumarry of (Vandalism). -- JLaTondre 02:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Neologosim that references Wikipedia. --Hetar 00:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move the definition to Wikipedia:Glossary. AndyZ t 01:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing more than a gallery of logos with no encyclopedic information. Please Delete. Georgia guy 00:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it is probably a logo gallery subpage for American Broadcasting Company. However, the images all seem to be fair use, but they all lack any fair use rationales and also amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Therefore, the image fair use problem should be looked into farther, and then perhaps the article should be deleted should the images fail WP:FUC. AndyZ t 01:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep only if logo's meet fair use, then it would be encyclopedic Funky Monkey (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but clean up the article so it can meet proper standards. As per above, make sure the identifications are fair use. :: Colin Keigher 03:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Funky Monkey. SorryGuy 04:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clarify, if logo use is ok. Also, compare to or consider BBC television idents. --Ajdz 05:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but cleanup. Is "ident" even the proper word to use? Fagstein 05:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, encyclopaedic. "Ident" is the usual term I've seen for these. Vashti 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per AndyZ and Ajdz. Tijuana Brass 07:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep encyclopedic -- Samir (the scope) 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup, its just the logo and this is encyclopedic. --Terence Ong 10:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Hard to imagine this not being fair use; hard to imagine conveying this information any other way. Smerdis of Tlön 15:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Currently this article fails to pass the fair use criteria policy. It needs more textual content regarding its history, like National Broadcasting Company logos. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but with regard to comments above, review the fair use. doktorb | words 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it is surprising that there are so many votes to keep this article even though it has no real text other than the heading paragraph. Georgia guy 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but article needs clean-up to be presentable. Wstaffor 22:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Really cool article. Needs some actual text, though. --Mboverload 22:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Either move to List of ABC idents, delete as unencyclopedic or expand. It is literally a list, no analysis, no text other than an explanatory sentence, etc. If it's possible to actually write something in the article, keep. Jesuschex 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's possible to write some text there, but not if it gets deleted before someone has a chance. The article was barely a day old when it got nominated. Analysis will be a problem because that is bound to become the forbidden "original research". LambiamTalk 00:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, someone go ahead and do so. Georgia guy 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's original research, than we'll delete it then. I'm all for giving it a chance, but only if there's potential. Jesuschex 02:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, someone go ahead and do so. Georgia guy 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's possible to write some text there, but not if it gets deleted before someone has a chance. The article was barely a day old when it got nominated. Analysis will be a problem because that is bound to become the forbidden "original research". LambiamTalk 00:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the example from National Broadcasting Company logos, articles like this have some chance for expansion into a good article. Then again, articles like ABC idents and BBC television idents don't. I thinking moving to "List of ABC idents" would be a good idea, because "list of" articles are just that: a list, not an article. Jesuschex 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep encyclopedic. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to commons It is nothing more than a gallery, commons is the place for galleries. Ansell 05:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not an image gallery, period/full stop. --Calton | Talk 06:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If improperly used images were removed this article would be two sentences, three external links, and four categories. Redirect to the ABC page until this article can be justified with actual content. Alternately, just delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:28
- Keep - a valuable addition to the sum of all human knowledge. KWH 17:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vanity. Endless Shrimp 00:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. None of her credits on IMDb indicate that she has moved beyond minor roles. This would need verifiable media reports if it is to avoid deletion. Capitalistroadster 00:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDb's credits are wrong. It lists her in at least one film in which she did not appear. Her wikipedia entry listed 4 films until very recently. Resume padding.
- delete* fluff Williamb 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have corrected the errors from IMDB. Furthermore, WP:BIO doesn't call for the deletion of a writer/actress whose "failure" is acheivement in TV and theater rather than movies. --M@rēino 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I just noticed that Endless Shrimp's account has no edits before proposing this page for deletion. --M@rēino 03:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Please do not bite the newcomers. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endless Shrimp (talk • contribs) \
- Comment, please remember to sign your comments. SorryGuy 04:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not biting. The rules that admins use to determine afd results specifically say that admins need to consider the possibility "'bad faith' opinions(, which sometimes but not always) include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article."--M@rēino 04:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sourced. Stella (TV series) links to it. Keep. Fagstein 05:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Following verification in article. Capitalistroadster 05:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep slightly notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets WP:BIO in my opinion. -- Samir (the scope) 08:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but barely. 100K google results on her name indicates at least some significant interest in this person. Article needs work. Quatloo 09:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just pointing out that most of the 100K google results on the name refer to the curator of a well-established NYC art gallery. Not the same person. Endless Shrimp 15:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This rides the edge of notability, but when in doubt it never hurts to be a little more inclusive. NoIdeaNick 09:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable celebrity, meets WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 11:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I say - Keep is notable and encyclopedic :) --Andy123(talk) 12:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep slightly notable Funky Monkey (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems to easily meet WP:BIO. Wstaffor 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, the NYC Fringe Festival alone should be enough, as it's a quite significant stage. Monicasdude 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "fringe" should be a clue there, hoss.--Calton | Talk 06:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The name "Fringe Festival" is self-consciously ironic; the event itself is well-known and extremely well-regarded. There are "Fringe Festivals" in major cities around the English-speaking world and more, including New York, Philadelphia, Boulder, San Francisco, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Ottawa, Melbourne, Prague, Singapore, Dublin, Brighton, Bath, and Edinburgh. Some are more substantial than others; the New York City event is extremely well-known, regularly covered in depth and treated as notable by media like the New York Times. The name, as I recall, goes back to one of the UK events in the late 1940s, staged in an area of the involved city known as "the Fringe". The last time I checked, an ironic name was not grounds for deprecating an otherwise substantial event. Monicasdude 15:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware that this discussion was about keeping or deleting any "Fringe" festival articles. And yes, the various "Fringe" festivals themselves are very notable. But what sort of individuals -- you know, the actual topic under discussion -- perform at the various "Fringe" festivals? Hmmm, the word "Fringe" should be a clue there, hoss. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's sort of a flimsy criterion. The festival is substantial—in a commercial sense—but the same can't automatically be said of individual participants. Should every single musician who participates in the CMJ Music Marathon or SXSW have their own wikipedia article? Endless Shrimp 20:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO:
- Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame)? Nope.
- # Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. A regular in a failed basic-cable series? Nope.
- --Calton | Talk 06:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."--M@rēino 18:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And just because they got a listing on IMDB or collected a couple of paychecks doesn't mean they should be kept, either. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."--M@rēino 18:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as corrected by Mareino. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a specific architect, it's a firm; reads like a business card or yellow pages entry; Brianporter 00:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article seems to say that the firm isn't that notable based on the limited amount of projects that the company has participated in; google gives no non-wikipedia hits for the term Where (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete self-promotion Williamb 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Appears to fail WP:CORP, unless someone can find some press coverage of them. Fagstein 05:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, too minor for inclusion. Quatloo 09:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn, fails WP:CORP, 0 Google hits besides Wikipedia, nn. --Terence Ong 11:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ad Funky Monkey (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because non-notable, although I would say that Googling "Downs Archambault" without the slash returns some significant hits, including this entry: (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002382). --Lockley 21:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not meet WP:CORP. Wstaffor 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per the link Lockley provided. -Objectivist-C 00:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, minor party failed candidate, little extra available. Mtiedemann 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Where (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Williamb 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently notable. Fagstein 05:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - socialist alliance candidates are usually lucky to get 1-2% of the vote.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn election candidate. --Terence Ong 11:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notablility --Andy123(talk) 12:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Funky Monkey (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn. Wstaffor 22:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:36
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. The only main-space incoming link was unnecessary, and I removed it, leaving an orphan duplicate dab page. Deleted as a housekeeping procedure. kingboyk 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant with previously existing disambiguation page at Motion. Also, I believe equal topic disambiguation and not primary topic disambiguation is appropriate in this case because of the genericity of the term "motion", the number of articles linking to "motion" which clearly do not mean the physical sense, and similar disambiguation organization on other-language Wikipedias. —Psychonaut 01:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 03:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Motion (such redirect pages are useful from time to time). TimBentley (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Motion. I can see people putting this in by mistake (for example, Motion (physics) accidentally links to it). Fagstein 05:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Motion. --Terence Ong 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect --Andy123(talk) 12:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Zero sharp 18:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I don't care that redirects are cheap, take a look at the what links here for the page being discussed. Five things, four of them Wiki related! The one link in Motion (physics) can easily be changed. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Motion. Wstaffor 22:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Redirect a dab page?! What, pray tell, would that achieve?! There's already a dab page and it's at Motion. I'm tempted to speedy this under CSD G6 (housekeeping). --kingboyk 02:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedied due to request by creator. Ingoolemo talk 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article some time ago, and I still believe that the information it contains is undeniably valuable. However, I have nominated it because I feel that the article is unencyclopedic in that it does not actually have a topic: it exists solely as a context for the scale-chart it contains—in fact, the article contains absolutely no information not already in the image it's built around. The GIF within it has been uploaded onto the commons, so no information will be lost. The commons is definitely a better place for this kind of thing. Ingoolemo talk 01:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with the exception of its subpages, it's entirely orphaned and has been for nearly two years. Ingoolemo talk 01:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; the image of the chart should probably be linked to in the see also in an appropriate article though Where (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Since deletion nominated by author. I like the article though. TeKE 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per only significant author's request, with kudos for the work that has found a new home. Fagstein 05:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per the above. Interesting work, though. -AED 07:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, author requested deletion. --Terence Ong 11:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, author requested deletion. --Andy123(talk) 12:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as per above. --grafikm_fr 12:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Funky Monkey (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete by author's request. Wstaffor 22:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up while drunk one day. 0 google hits. {{prod}} failed. Delete -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this drink was invented 2 days ago; things don't become notable that fast (as google shows) Where (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable beverage. dbtfztalk 03:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Williamb 03:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 04:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Popularity has exploded in all of two days. Delete. Fagstein 05:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nom. Tijuana Brass 07:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn drink, WP:NFT. --Terence Ong 11:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to User:Adamblang, the author. It would be appropriate there. Davodd 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notability --Andy123(talk) 12:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Funky Monkey (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, plus tastes awful (yes, I tried it) FinFangFoom 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmmm. Delete. DJ Clayworth 19:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wstaffor 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It's been around what...four days? That's hardly time for a Martini-style craze. If there's a wikicookbook around somewhere, perhaps they'd be better off posting the article there. Pat Payne 21:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:37
- Delete as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally prodded by User:AYArktos on the grounds of questioning how this church stood out from others. User:Cynical then removed, on the grounds "churches are notable". I disagree that a religious centre is inherently important so here it is. I am unconvinced that the fact that this church was formed by a minority group adds any more notability to the fact that it is a church.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete wikipedia is not the yellow pages Where (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom - notability not established. Schools, for an example of a comparable institution, are merged into their locality article as a separate section, where notability not established and limited information provided. --A Y Arktos\talk 02:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Williamb 03:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Individual churches may be notable, but most of them are not in fact notable. Most of the churches which have come up on AfD have been deleted. --Metropolitan90 03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 05:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A search of an Australia-New Zealand newspaper database came up with nothing so absence of verifiable material. Capitalistroadster 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Much as I love church exposure anywhere it can be gotten, there's no verifiable information of the church doing anything beyond the standard church business. It's interesting but doesn't meet even the weakest standards of notability. Captainktainer 16:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, NN. Tijuana Brass 07:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, pending citation of sources. I know I'm going against the trend here, but I feel that churches are by their nature notable. We have articles for every small town and CDP in the United States, so I don't see any harm in including an article on each church. On the other hand, whatever information is included must be verifiable, and if it is impossible to do that for this church then it will be impossible for Wikipedia to have an article on this church. NoIdeaNick 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Funky Monkey (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per NoIdeaNick. Never did understand why schools were inherently notable but churches weren't, Wiki isn't paper, so have 'em all I say (pending verification) Jcuk 21:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- not notable. - Longhair 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone can edit the article to verify some sort of notability. Otherwise I really don't see how it is encyclopedic in any way. Wstaffor 22:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as above. It is verifiable, and represents a real part of a community. The fact that it is not in America should not be used to delete it. For great justice. 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:AYArktos and myself are both from Australia. AYArktos has been around a long time, has a barnstart of national merit and is an admin, and I have also written many new articles on Australian content - We are not prejudiced against Australian material, but we do nominate things if they are not particularly notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 00:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One reason it's so hard to find with Google is that this is actually called the "Austral-Asian Christian Church". If it is kept, the article should really provide more context. Australia, OK, but where in Australia? I'm getting a flashback of a ring found in the parking lot. I understand it is in Adelaide, but I see also a reference to Canberra, Perth and Darwin. Is this a Church in the sense of the Church of England (an institution), or in the sense of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (a building)? Based on 1266.0 - Australian Standard Classification of Religious Groups (ASCRG), 1996 I'd think the former, but from their web site I'd guess the latter. What gives? LambiamTalk 01:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - totally as NoIdeaNick. Luka Jačov 08:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep multilingual aspect, also cultural diversity are notable. Paul foord 05:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely non-notable. --Roisterer 14:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per NoIdeaNick. What is with people just saying "non-notable" and never giving reasons? WP has lots of room for articles on obscure topics. People simply stating "completely non-notable" and the like should back themselves up if they are asking for deletion of articles. And I don't like overseas people simply voting for deletion because the article in question comes from another country. (JROBBO 01:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete one of millions of non-notable churches worldwide, most of which thankfully don't self-promote here. Harro5 07:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --serbiana - talk 20:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per NoIdeaNick. --estavisti 13:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep PANONIAN (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the anti-non-notability squadron is back. --GTubio 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: NN local club. --Hetar 02:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 03:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Williamb 03:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If something was interesting I would say merge into Hull University, but there's nothing salvageable here. Fagstein 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notability --Andy123(talk) 12:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Funky Monkey (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete probably could have gone under {{db-club}}, the pictures should also be put up for deletion. pm_shef 20:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wstaffor 22:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:38
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an internet forum with 167 total members. Interiot 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. Kimchi.sg | talk
- Delete Williamb 03:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable and per WP:WEB --Andy123(talk) 12:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Funky Monkey (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet WP:WEB. Wstaffor 22:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable website. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:38
- Delete - existing references on the Liero page are sufficient. SM247 21:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement/NPOV, non-notable, not to wiki markup standards J.reed 02:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom :: Colin Keigher 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE Williamb 03:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. Fagstein 05:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete adspam.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, spam. --Terence Ong 11:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, spam --Andy123(talk) 12:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Funky Monkey (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam. Wstaffor 23:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:39
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Axon, Atrophy, and Amenorrhea. This article talks about all three of those subjects, but fails to join them together. :: Colin Keigher 02:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, duplicate of information in 3 articles. Kimchi.sg | talk 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Williamb 03:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, speedily if it somehow fits into one of those categories. Fagstein 05:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this isn't so much a specific condition as a combination of separate ones as pointed out by nom. Tijuana Brass 07:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Agree with all. -- Samir (the scope) 08:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, duplicate. --Terence Ong 11:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, indiscriminate info reads like a copyvio. Suggest that all new diseases be named the same way: Bacterial baby brain bloat; Coagulating cochlear convex chitin, &c. Smerdis of Tlön 15:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Horribly formatted, virtually no usable content.
- Delete per nom Funky Monkey (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:39
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is more like a biography of two people in a band, probably does not show up on Google, and has reference only on a myspace page. Funnybunny 03:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Google shows 159 hits [3], but the first hit goes to their myspace page. Not a very promising indicator of notability. Doesn't appear to "appeal to all fans regardless of race, creed, or sexual preference", despite what the article asserts. Kimchi.sg | talk 03:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Williamb 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- why dont you tell us why your voting delete?65.8.35.219 03:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, utter nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, another NN MySpace band. Besides, this appears to be self-promotion. :: Colin Keigher 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, borderline BJAODN. Fagstein 05:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, vanity. Nice picture, though. Tijuana Brass 07:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn band, vanity. --Terence Ong 11:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Andy123(talk) 12:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity nn Funky Monkey (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. Wstaffor 23:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable band. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:39
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to assert notability of the band. It says that the group has "a large fan base in British Columbia", but does not state the source of that information, or provide statistics to support this claim. Thus, the article fails WP:MUSIC. Interesting name though, so a reluctant delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 03:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as speaking as British Columbian, I have seen a SINGLE poster posted in a bus loop in their hometown, and that is about it. This is certainly NN. :: Colin Keigher 03:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable enough yet. dbtfztalk 03:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Funnybunny 03:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delewte Williamb 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for bands made up in school one day which are one day going to make it big. Fagstein 05:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn band. --Terence Ong 12:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable --Andy123(talk) 12:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Funky Monkey (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wstaffor 23:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ardenn 05:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable band. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:40
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -lethe talk + 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In my view this is a trivial fact with an improper name. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't even think this is a theorem, much less the first one. "All right angles are congruent" is the fourth postulate in Euclidean geometry. --Metropolitan90 04:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is almost as bad as giving 1×1 its own article. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Shouldn't this nonsense be speedily deleted? --CSTAR 04:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This does not satisfy speedy deletion criteria — it has sufficient context, and "one right angle is congruent with another" is hardly patent nonsense. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The title made me think that somehow this theorem has an important role in Euclid's Elements, or is at least its first theorem, in which case I might have at least entertained arguments to keep a redirect to an article with a better name. However, I note that this is postulate 4 of book 1 of Euclid's elements, and not a theorem at all. I would like to know what list Randomaccount990 says this theorem is on (RS mentions in an edit summary "there is a list... and this is #1"), but I doubt it would change my vote. Delete. -lethe talk + 04:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's probably the first theorem on a list his high school geometry teacher passed out. Nothing wrong with that, but not encyclopedic. --Trovatore 04:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Euclid is spinning congruently in his grave. Fagstein 05:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The El Reyko 09:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Elroch 10:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Terence Ong 12:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aargh! Was never good at math. But, this is an improper name. Delete ;) --Andy123(talk) 12:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --KSmrqT 14:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are theorems that have names like Hilbert's theorem 90, but this is not the same as stating "Theorem 90". Besides, there are plenty of well-regarded and known textbooks (e.g. Dummit and Foote's algebra text) that refer to this theorem of Hilbert that way. I would need to see similar evidence of the notability of this name "Theorem 1" for this fact. I suspect, as Trovatore has stated, that this is the first item on a list a hs teacher has passed out. --C S (Talk) 17:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. (Unless it's revised to say that the first theorem in every book is called "Theorem 1"?? But skip this silly parenthetical comment.) Michael Hardy 22:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Even with that revision, the problem remains that not every first theorem in books is called "Theorem 1". Oops, I guess I wasn't supposed to respond to that :-) --C S (Talk) 22:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Improper name, and this is one of Euclid's postulates, not a theorem. Wstaffor 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (I'd have thunked that Theorem 1 was that if you have one point, then they are all congruent. Then Theorem 2 for two points.) LambiamTalk 01:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You know... I think I'm being outnumbered on this. And I know Euclid would be proud... (that man loves his theorems). User:Randomaccount990 April 19th.
- Question. Why did you call this theorem 1 -- or rather on what list is it the first theorem? The name is puzzling (there are lots of theorem 1s in mathematics articles and book, sometimes even within the same book) and seems nonsensical in the context of WP.--CSTAR 17:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or merge with Theorem 1½) Dmharvey 03:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or merge with Lemma 0). linas 05:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:40
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn game, zero Google hits for "Klambino Ball" or "Klambinoball". User:Zoe|(talk) 03:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BJAODN. Wikipedia is not for stuff made up in your backyard one day. Fagstein 06:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Fagstein. Tijuana Brass 07:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NFT, nn game. --Terence Ong 12:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable --Andy123(talk) 12:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Funky Monkey (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom AndyZ t 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT. Wstaffor 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy put it on the contributors personal space. No need to delete stuff outright on a contributors first real effort on wikipedia. Should encourage people to edit, just point them to the right places for certain edits. We wouldn't want to be accused of Biting the newcomers. Ansell 02:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've boldly userfied to User:Deathklams/Klambino Ball. Fagstein 04:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it would be against consensus to have a contributor stay on wikipedia long enough to learn the way things work. Simple mistake to think a game with that many well-defined rules would be acceptable on an encyclopedia. Ansell 05:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So we're supposed to allow the first article by any and all editors? Have you seen the crap that gets deleted on a regular basis? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did say user space, it is not "allowing" the article into the main space. I know what the guidelines are. I also think we should try to keep people from being turned off by people flaming them for their first edit. Put it in user space where they can have what they want anyway. I haven't seen any strict guidelines about what someone can develop in user space lately. Ansell 07:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:42
save Klambino Ball!
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been placed here by someone mistaking Wikipedia for a gaming discussion forum. u p p l a n d 03:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there seems to be no real reason why this entry should exist. Gamecruft. :: Colin Keigher 03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a free webhost for gamers. —ERcheck @ 04:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notified user; Wikipedia is not a webspace provider for obscure online games. _-M
oP-_ 05:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. Looks like patent nonsense to me, but I'll take the safe way. Fagstein 06:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- this is not what Wikipedia is for. The El Reyko 09:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or Transwiki to Wikibooks. Davodd 11:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NOT. --Terence Ong 12:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Funky Monkey (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT. Wstaffor 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:42
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable building at York University. Wikipedia is not a junkyard Delete Ardenn 03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am not too sure if this should be kept or not, as it is talking about the building itself, not it being a part of the university. Seeing that it is a stub about buildings in Canada, I would probably keep it, but I am abstaining. :: Colin Keigher 04:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per nom. Buildings aren't noteable simply by virtue of them being built. - pm_shef 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have lunch in this building most days, but that is not enough to make it encyclopedic. :) -Joshuapaquin 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Comment, You know, you have a valid point... mind changed. :) :: Colin Keigher 04:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can it be merged with York University? BoojiBoy 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - BoojiBoy, feel free to merge pertinent/encyclopedic information. —ERcheck @ 04:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable. —ERcheck @ 04:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG, building with KFC! Delete (nothing salvageable for merge). Fagstein 06:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete canteens are not notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep stub. It is doing no harm. Wikipedia is not paper. Davodd 11:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - if something notable happens to make the building important, let's recreate the article; in the meantime, let's delete.
- Delete nn Funky Monkey (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. RexNL 19:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. Wstaffor 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - verfiable, can be merged if necessary. For great justice. 23:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:43
- Comment I've incorporated the content of this article into York University, so it can be either deleted or merged. - pm_shef 21:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes no claim as to why it deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 04:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable. —ERcheck @ 04:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Comment to nominator: couldn't you have just nominated all the NN York University buildings in one AfD? Kimchi.sg | talk 04:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably, I didn't think about it. Sorry. Ardenn 04:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. this is ludicrous. - pm_shef 04:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fagstein 06:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep stub. It is doing no harm. Wikipedia is not paper. Davodd 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Bhoeble 11:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 12:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Captainktainer 16:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Funky Monkey (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. RexNL 19:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. Wstaffor 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Beatrice Ice Gardens. Samaritan 07:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:43
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. I have lived in this general area for 15 years and I have never ever heard this phrase. Google has nothing of the sort no matter what combo I use. Moreover, DuPage County, Illinois is never spelled with a space between Du and Page. This just silly monikercruft or even vandalism & it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Trust me on this.Madman 04:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable neologism. Fagstein 06:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Davodd 11:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Checking my property tax bill... yep, DuPage, no space. Never heard this term either, and I don't even think those are the richest communities in the county. The development has headed way west of those towns, and the honor probably goes now to Naperville. - Fan1967 14:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverifiable Funky Monkey (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless a source is given. Wstaffor 23:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:44
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable building at York University. Wikipedia is not a junkyard Delete --Ardenn 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 04:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. props to ardenn for catching all this yorkcruft. pm_shef 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep stub. It is doing no harm. Wikipedia is not paper. Davodd 11:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Funky Monkey (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. Wstaffor 23:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:44
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Just enough for a consensus, methinks. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes no claim as to why it deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete --Ardenn 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 04:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. props to ardenn for catching all this yorkcruft. pm_shef 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment, Pm_shef, please do not make false slanderous accusations, its very worthy of an article and is definetly not any kind of "cruft" as you attempt to claim --JohnnyCanuck 17:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep stub. It is doing no harm. Wikipedia is not paper. Davodd 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bhoeble 11:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is one of Toronto's main arenas with spectator seating and is just as notable as the rest of Category:Indoor arenas in Canada. BoojiBoy 13:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand, its one of the best arenas in the GTA, hosted many international tournaments, practice facility of many NHLers, the main rink has an "european style" ice surface, the largest ice surface in the north america --JohnnyCanuck 17:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article somewhat. Request nominator withdraw nom. BoojiBoy 18:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable Funky Monkey (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. RexNL 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, with fewer than 1000 results in Google, not really a matter of public interest. Quatloo 20:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment over 33,000 results in Google, originally called Ice Gardens, later sold naming rights to be called Beatrice Ice Gardens--JohnnyCanuck 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as stub. Needs expansion, but seems notable enough. Wstaffor 23:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems like a reasonable stub. In its current state it could probably be merged into another article, but the stub leaves room for expansion. Mangojuice 03:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm familiar with the topic and can attest that it is notable, and not so granular it should merge into York University or anything. Samaritan 07:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite and keep. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:45
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes no claim as to why it deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete --Ardenn 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 04:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. props to ardenn for catching all this yorkcruft. pm_shef 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep stub is doing no harm. Wikipedia is not paper. Davodd 11:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Funky Monkey (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. RexNL 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into York University. --Lockley 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. Wstaffor 23:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. --Skeezix1000 22:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:45
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely duplicative of another article, Danielle Rousseau, over which an edit war has raged. Originator of the current page was blocked for WP:3RR on this previous article for two days, and his very first action on returning was (without discussion) to create this new page to cement his own stance on the previous article. Copyright issues also exist here but are secondary. This is a redundant article and should be deleted. PKtm 04:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Replication of information is pointless, particularly in the light of a reversion conflict. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant content fork. Fagstein 06:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Normally I'd say "Merge into Characters of Lost," but it seems that page already has ample information on this character. --Hyperbole 06:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As PKtm still assumes I am attempting to rage an edit war, even though I am not, I am upset to see him constantly marking my articles for deletion, especially one that would solve the current debate upon the Danielle Rousseau issue - Shaft121 07:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How does unilaterally creating a duplicate article resolve a content dispute? Fagstein 18:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per PKtm. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redundant. --Terence Ong 12:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Hyperbole, although the Characters of Lost page should probably be split, since it's an unwieldy chunk of text.
- Speedy Delete Danielle Rousseau already redirects to characters of Lost, this page is redundant. --Darkfred Talk to me 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as User:Fagstein Funky Monkey (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. —LeflymanTalk 19:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wstaffor 23:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Fagstein. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:46
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election and Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election
Not encyclopedic. Pages for failed candidates of very minor party. brenneman{L} 04:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep for both. There are numerous pages like this on Wikipedia, and the article format is the result of a compromise that followed extensive discussions. CJCurrie 04:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you provided some links to these discussions that would help. As it is, these pages appear to be platforms for non-notable people to squeeze into wikipedia, expanding the coverage of fairly non-notable groups. There's nothing encyclopedic here that couldn't go into the parent article. - brenneman{L} 04:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The original discussion can be found here. Subsequent practice has confirmed the acceptability of list pages -- I'll see if I can find sufficient evidence. CJCurrie 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the first practical example of a list page being utilized as a compromise. CJCurrie 05:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And here is a more recent example. Note that most contributors now believe the list page approach is acceptable, even if the specific bio page is not worth keeping (which it wasn't). CJCurrie 05:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And here is a prior example of a list page being nominated for deletion, and surviving by a wide margin. CJCurrie 05:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you provided some links to these discussions that would help. As it is, these pages appear to be platforms for non-notable people to squeeze into wikipedia, expanding the coverage of fairly non-notable groups. There's nothing encyclopedic here that couldn't go into the parent article. - brenneman{L} 04:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for both. The CHP is just as notable as Marijuana Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. :: Colin Keigher 04:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While I strongly feel that individual minor party candidates don't deserve their own articles, it is a good idea for an encyclopedic type production such as Wiki to keep a list of former candidates. Good reference material, without wasting space on non-noteable nobodies. pm_shef 05:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ardenn 05:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both. Gives us a place to store information on candidates for a party without clogging the place with non-notable biographies often cribbed if not copied from the Party website. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - At least some of this material belongs. If it doesn't warrant a separate article, then it may be merged to Christian Heritage Party of Canada, after discussion on the relevant talk page (not an AFD issue). Christian Heritage Party of Canada has nothing on individual candidates, and I think at least some, like those who's vote counts exceed the winner/runner-up spread, are worthy of inclusion in one or the other article. -Rob 05:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both per CJCurrie and pm_shef. —GrantNeufeld 05:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looks interesting, and much better than having articles on each of the candidates. Fagstein 06:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sentence of it do you find interesting, choosing from those following the table of contents? The plain old results tables are, I expect, already summarised more sensibly elsewhere. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An article on the Party is a different matter, but failed candidates are not notable. --kingboyk 06:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This whole idea was first proposed by AFD' as a solution to a very real and otherwise unresolvable debate. It's not an ideal solution, I grant, but it's the only way anybody's found to date to balance a very real and legitimate difference of opinion on the notability of electoral candidates. So, considering that this approach was AFD's idea to begin with, keep. Bearcat 06:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as status quo compromise. This 'List of...' article is a proactive alternative to individual candidate pages that spring up every election. Theoretically (in my mergist fantasy), all candidates get a redirect page to this kind of list page (or, more practically, as it is practised, all candidates get merged/redirected to such a page once someone creates an article on them). This page solves some rather annoying things, like endless afds on electoral candidates who just want the free ad space and get it for at least the 5 days the afd takes (hint: don't take it to afd, just merge/redirect it to the list pages) and a one-stop shop to monitor for abusive or peacock descriptions of the candidate (opposed to monitoring hundreds of pages during that grace period candidates are normally given during an election). This topic had a centralized discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates; and this proposal came up here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates#A mergist's solution. --maclean25 07:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a solution since we just keep the (non-)information somewhere else! What does it matter which title you put it under? If we get a bunch of politico-vanity-adverts every election, then that's fine. Delete them every election. I do not see, like Hiding below, that that discussion has any particular 'consensus' so strong as to overrule ordinary notability standards and to justify a dismissal of this entire AfD on the basis of it, as some seem to be suggesting. -194.247.247.60 19:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a "solution" to the problem you are posing, but it is a solution to the problem posed at the centralized discussion. This is an unofficial compromise, not a 'concensus' that emerged from centralized discussion (it never went to a straw poll). The reason the title matters is because it is much easier to deal with one article than a dozen. These are just little bios that illustrate what kind of people are running for these parties. They are not full-blown biographies that require hours of research. One of the reasons the centralized discussion occured was because the afd process was not working, some were kept, some deleted (some repeatedly) but most ended with 'no concensus'. --maclean25 01:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a solution since we just keep the (non-)information somewhere else! What does it matter which title you put it under? If we get a bunch of politico-vanity-adverts every election, then that's fine. Delete them every election. I do not see, like Hiding below, that that discussion has any particular 'consensus' so strong as to overrule ordinary notability standards and to justify a dismissal of this entire AfD on the basis of it, as some seem to be suggesting. -194.247.247.60 19:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced, reading Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, that this compromise has any more consensus than any other. I'm also not sure we need seperate lists for each party, when they are of these lengths. I think I'd be inclined to keep merging these lists to a point where they aren't unwieldy and aren't potential forks and aren't granting undue balance. On the last point, do the major parties also have lists of their failed candidates? If not, we are creating articles on an undue balance basis. At the moment, delete. I could see a value in Candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election, but we're not debating that here. Hiding talk 07:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yes, the major parties do also have list articles for their unelected candidates. Bearcat 07:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give me a few links. I can't see any links on Canadian federal election, 2004. Is there any reason these can't all be merged into one list? Hiding The wikipedian meme 08:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (i) Liberal Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election (I actually think Wes Penner might merit his own bio page, but I'll save that for another day), (ii) a "merged list" would be too long. CJCurrie 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason that all these lists can't be folded into Candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election, which seems to be a natural sub-article of 2004 Canadian federal election. Hiding The wikipedian meme 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there's 1,683 candidates and that would be a ginormous list? Fagstein 19:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason that all these lists can't be folded into Candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election, which seems to be a natural sub-article of 2004 Canadian federal election. Hiding The wikipedian meme 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (i) Liberal Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election (I actually think Wes Penner might merit his own bio page, but I'll save that for another day), (ii) a "merged list" would be too long. CJCurrie 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give me a few links. I can't see any links on Canadian federal election, 2004. Is there any reason these can't all be merged into one list? Hiding The wikipedian meme 08:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yes, the major parties do also have list articles for their unelected candidates. Bearcat 07:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This seems totally appropriate to me. While having a separate page for each of these candidates would be overkill, a list with some basic information certainly seems worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia of unlimited size such as Wikipedia. NoIdeaNick 09:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per NoIdeaNick and others. Wikipedia is not paper. CJCurrie and others have gathered a lot of verifiable informaiton about these people into a small numbers of well-organized articles. It would be a shame to lose these. Ground Zero | t 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --Terence Ong 12:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We need to get rid of the individual nn candidate entries, and need a place to put them. One article per party per election for losing candidates seems reasonable. Fan1967 14:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How does keeping them get rid of them? Why do we need a place for below-average losers? One article per party that is actually relevant to the world outside their pub crew, I can understand. But an article just for signing a form once? That's a bit much. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm at a loss why a party that got way way less than 1% overall (yes, individual ridings varied but they competed in what, 15 ridings tops???) needs an article about a particular election outcome. I think merging this stuff with the main party article is the way to go. To those that cite other party articles, as examples that it should be done this way, I suggest perhaps that other minor party articles need the same merging/purging treatment too. Nothing much more could ever be said here, could it? As much as it pains me to do so, given my extreme detestation for Mr. Brenneman and his deletionist ways (KIDDING!) I must suggest that the right thing to do here is Merge with redirect... ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - This is the sort of information that politics researchers find useful; one of the things that constantly hampers my discipline is not having information on the minor parties in countries outside the United States. Even if the article was not useful now, I can state without any reservation at all that, based on the research being done today, it will be useful a few years down the line.Captainktainer 16:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both as CJCurrie pointed out, it is a reasonable compromise. Useful information for future research on Canadian elections. Note that Wikipedia is not paper. Luigizanasi 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per CJCurrie et al. BoojiBoy 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Funky Monkey (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as irrelevant to the local community, the national community, the world community, the election, the other candidates in the election and as a grouping together of a whole bunch of utterly non-notable bios, each of which would be a near-speedy candidate if it weren't masquerading as an election result. There is little to no information in these articles that is informative of politics and there is no reason to spend time writing about a collection of literal losers. Losing by a stonkingly huge amount is something that Joe Anybody can do without even leaving their bedroom: literally. Add a passing mention to a main article or two, or a table of percentages somewhere. No need for a full-blown merge and redirect. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user has no prior contributions. CJCurrie 19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I have about 25,000. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, but you signed anonymously the first time. CJCurrie 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did. And I imagine my comment sounds quite harsh to the author of the article. But really, did they have any impact on any of the things I mentioned in my first sentence? Are they likely ever too? Did they even get any significant media coverage, apart from some presumable stuff about being a fringe party (or whatever the terminology appropriately is)? Is the detailed info on the candidates actually of connection to anything other than this article? If you cut that out, at least we'd get a more focussed article. -Splashtalk 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't create the 2006 article -- someone else did. As has already been noted, the list system is a compromise: the candidates don't need to be individually important to qualify. To the party's importance, it might be noteworthy the Stephen Harper, Canada's current PM, once wrote about adding the CHP's support base to a broad "right-wing coalition" (not that I'm suggesting that the page should be kept for this reason alone). CJCurrie 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did. And I imagine my comment sounds quite harsh to the author of the article. But really, did they have any impact on any of the things I mentioned in my first sentence? Are they likely ever too? Did they even get any significant media coverage, apart from some presumable stuff about being a fringe party (or whatever the terminology appropriately is)? Is the detailed info on the candidates actually of connection to anything other than this article? If you cut that out, at least we'd get a more focussed article. -Splashtalk 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, but you signed anonymously the first time. CJCurrie 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I have about 25,000. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user has no prior contributions. CJCurrie 19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A minor party, but at least a notable one. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable for what? Your comment implies that some minor parties might be non-notable. What distinguishes this one? -Splashtalk 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn. RexNL 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where has everyone got the idea that Wikipedia should onlyu include things that are important or "notable" (which is as vague and useless a term as one could imagine)? The main advantage that Wikipedia has over paper encyclopedias is that is can cover the nooks and crannies of the sum of knowledge in this world. There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest, Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. Ground Zero | t 20:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an endlessly rehearsed argument. It fails on several key counts: Jimbo's ordinary opinions, whilst of great interest, do not form policy or guideline absent some authority being granted to them, or him speaking ex cathedra. Also, "non-notable" is such an accepted deletion criterion that non-notable bios, bands etc, can be deleted on sight per CSD A7. "Non-notable" is a frequently successful argument for deletion because it is simply a collecting-together of many different things: WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, of unencyclopedic information, etc etc. It is not as simple "i don't think he's interesting". It is clearly enough not a "useless" term, it is actually a usefully adaptive term that is just oft-debated as people differ on individual items. The nooks and crannies of the sum of knowledge indeed; it is questionable whether the school-days employment of a random loser qualifies as knowledge. -Splashtalk 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And the counter-argument is that there are hundreds of articles on minor characters in Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Buffy, Pokemon, video game and lots of other fictional universes. There are articles on weaponry, spacecraft, battles, religions, languages and institutions of these universes that do not exist. These articles exist because people are interested enough to write about them, and because Wikipedia is willing to be the host for information about them. Here we are talking about real world candidates of real world political parties for real world political offices in a county that is, for the most part, a real place. There are people who are interested in writing about and reading about these people. How is Wikipedia diminished by allowing the stories of these real people sit alongside all of the articles about the stories of minor fictitional characters? Ground Zero | t 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where has everyone got the idea that Wikipedia should onlyu include things that are important or "notable" (which is as vague and useless a term as one could imagine)? The main advantage that Wikipedia has over paper encyclopedias is that is can cover the nooks and crannies of the sum of knowledge in this world. There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest, Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. Ground Zero | t 20:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely Strong Keep per Ground Zero's excellent argument. If we can have articles on every single damn pokemon that (N)ever existed, this should be a no brainer. Jcuk 21:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the party is notable and the information here could be useful to researchers. Wstaffor 23:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think that records on small party candidates are important for historical reasons. Also, CHP canidates tend to run multiple times and in multiple ridings. This info will almost certainly be useful for future elections. Just nbecause you didn't get a lot of votes doesn't mean that a candidate didn't make an impact. NDP Johnny 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per pm_shef. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, as above. Samaritan 07:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. While an article about the party is perfectly acceptable, these "list of failed candidates" pages are not appropriate to the encyclopedia. This is just a thinly veiled attempt to include content which would be unacceptable (per WP:BIO) if listed separately. If this trend is allowed to continue, Wikipedia will be flooded with these unmaintainable pages. Rossami (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has lost a few elections and made some ludicrous statements, but does not appear to pass guideline for inclusion of humans.
brenneman{L} 04:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or barring that merge. Heather's past makes for an interesting bio, and I believe his status as a perennial candidate makes him sufficiently notable (he also holds an executive position in a provincial party of some note, in any case). I originally had this on the CHP 2006 list page, but decided there was enough material for a credible bio. CJCurrie 04:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. --Ardenn 05:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Multiple newspaper references, ran against prime minister in his riding, and hosts a radio show. Good enough in the notability department as far as I'm concerned. Fagstein 06:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you meant premier... Ralph Klein :: Colin Keigher 09:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I meant prime minister Stephen Harper, though he wasn't prime minister at the time, I suppose. Fagstein 18:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, 105 google results against a living person == utterly unimportant. Quatloo 09:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A merge would also be acceptable, but it seems like there's enough information for an entire article devoted just to this one candidate. He is notable as a perennial candiate and as an activist. NoIdeaNick 09:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - My POV may wish he weren't exposed, but he is and he appears to have some importance. Captainktainer 16:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep sort of notable Funky Monkey (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per nom and Quatloo. RexNL 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above. Wstaffor 23:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per Captaintainer. The guy's a yahoo, but if we can have articles for other such gadflies and annoyances who seem to attract undeserved media attention (like Fred Phelps)... Pat Payne 21:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per fine arguments above. Samaritan 07:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
High school teacher suspended for being anti-gay. Does not appear to be notable per guideline for inclusion of people.
brenneman{L} 04:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or barring that merge. Was at the centre of a court case that gained national attention. I believe he is notable. CJCurrie 04:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to change my vote to merge -- I was confusing Kempling with Mary Polak re: the "national case" situation.CJCurrie 05:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC) In light of recent comments, I'm going back to my initial call. CJCurrie 03:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 04:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. --Ardenn 05:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article seems to be about the incident more than the person. Makes me more inclined to keep it. Fagstein 06:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election as per numerous precedents set. Like
CJCurrie says. Otherwise keep, relatively notable court case in Canada. Luigizanasi 06:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. --kingboyk 06:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge. Relevant guideline from WP:BIO is "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events " Richard 07:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as this is an article about a relevant person in British Columbia. This was a major story for quite some time. :: Colin Keigher 09:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge as per Richard. NoIdeaNick 09:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He's about to tell the world about his situation through the UN. Deet 11:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 12:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable Funky Monkey (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems to easily meet WP:BIO. Wstaffor 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm still not seeing a single shred of evidence in the article that this person meets the guideline. Where's the coverage by an independant souce? Mentions in reputable media? Testimony of wikipedia editors is not verification and since this is a discussion and not a vote it would be good to have some evidence of notability presented. - brenneman{L} 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Supreme Court rejects teacher's appeal over homosexuality issue", Calgary Herald, 29 January 2006; "Quesnel teacher suspended for gay views running for Christian Heritage Party", Canadian Press, 12 December 2005; "Free speech needs to be for everybody", Calgary Herald, 5 November 2005 (feature editorial); "Civil liberties group tells court teacher `must constrain his public utterances'", Canadian Press, 24 April 2005; "A hard lesson in free speech: B.C. teacher taken to task for airing same-sex marriage views", Calgary Herald, 10 April 2005, "B.C. Civil Liberties Association intervenes in case of anti-homosexual teacher", Canadian Press, 31 August 2004. Should I continue? CJCurrie 05:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some reason that you were holding these back, eh? Better yet why aren't these references in the article? Looking at Wikipedia:Verifiability it says in bold letters "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." So, yes, please do continue.
brenneman{L} 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- I wasn't holding back -- I had no involvement in creating this article, and I wasn't even aware it existed until you put it on afd. When you posed the question, I did a quick newspaper search, which yielded the above results (and others). CJCurrie 21:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some reason that you were holding these back, eh? Better yet why aren't these references in the article? Looking at Wikipedia:Verifiability it says in bold letters "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." So, yes, please do continue.
- "Supreme Court rejects teacher's appeal over homosexuality issue", Calgary Herald, 29 January 2006; "Quesnel teacher suspended for gay views running for Christian Heritage Party", Canadian Press, 12 December 2005; "Free speech needs to be for everybody", Calgary Herald, 5 November 2005 (feature editorial); "Civil liberties group tells court teacher `must constrain his public utterances'", Canadian Press, 24 April 2005; "A hard lesson in free speech: B.C. teacher taken to task for airing same-sex marriage views", Calgary Herald, 10 April 2005, "B.C. Civil Liberties Association intervenes in case of anti-homosexual teacher", Canadian Press, 31 August 2004. Should I continue? CJCurrie 05:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Quite obviously noteworthy. Silensor 06:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable enough: 14.000 google hits. Jens Nielsen 06:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is noteworthy but needs to be edited to included referneces and to make it seem less slanted. I have modified the language to make it seem less biased. Some one needs to add in some good references and citations Edward Brown.
- If the article survives the afd process, as the primary author, I'll take responsibility for addressing all the concerns regarding references. Having said that, Browned, is there someone who wouldn't consider this to be a pro-homosexual agenda (the link was in the article but deleted by Brenneman)? That page starts with the terms "social justice activists" and "homophobia and heterosexism action group" to describe their approach. I still intend to keep all relevant facts in the revised article. Pointing out the activism of a group that identifies iteself as activist, is not an "attack", especially when it relates directly to the topic at hand. Deet 00:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the point is that the term "pro-homosexual agenda" is itself slanted and POV. Anyway, this isn't relevant to the afd; please address the matter on the article talk page. CJCurrie 00:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article survives the afd process, as the primary author, I'll take responsibility for addressing all the concerns regarding references. Having said that, Browned, is there someone who wouldn't consider this to be a pro-homosexual agenda (the link was in the article but deleted by Brenneman)? That page starts with the terms "social justice activists" and "homophobia and heterosexism action group" to describe their approach. I still intend to keep all relevant facts in the revised article. Pointing out the activism of a group that identifies iteself as activist, is not an "attack", especially when it relates directly to the topic at hand. Deet 00:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Activists don't have agendas? Anyways, I take your point on discussing this in the other section.Deet 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: All who are familiar with this case should know that the Kempling case has enormous ramifications. Certainly the College of Education saw it as important or they would not have pursued the matter so far. The BC Teachers' Federation saw it important in that even though they were against Kempling's statements they gave him financial backing at a higher court level than, I understand, they were required to. Practically everything in this article is neutral, and it would only take one or two minor ones to make it totally so. The facts of this case, including the decision which effectively bars teachers from independent public discussion of education unless they are politically in line with the correct thinking, is enormous. User: Ted Hewlett 21 April 2006
- Article is now updated Deet 01:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication that this corporation even exists, let alone meets the notability criteria of WP:CORP. "Coppola Investment Group" gets zero Google hits. The author, Awhitfie, has promised to add sources to this article (see his talk, my talk), but hasn't in fact done so yet. See also the Nathan Coppola AfD nomination. Sandstein 04:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Unable to verify that it exists, nevermind verify that it is important. -AED 07:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on verifiability grounds. If the info can be verified it may be worthy of reopening.Captainktainer
- Delete as per above Funky Monkey (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless verified with sources. Wstaffor 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only John A. Coppola I could find on Google was one who was a realtor in Massachusetts...just a little bit away from Irving, Tx., dontcha think? ;) Pat Payne 21:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication that this individual even exists, let alone meets the notability criteria of WP:BIO. "Nathan Joseph Coppola" gets zero Google hits. The author, Awhitfie, has promised to add sources to this article (see his talk, my talk), but hasn't in fact done so yet. See also the Coppola Group AfD nomination. Sandstein 04:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Unable to verify that he exists, nevermind verify that he is important. -AED 07:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Hetar 18:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Hawkestone 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above Funky Monkey (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wstaffor 23:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 03:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing encyclopedic here that could not go into parent article. There are lots of political parties that don't get elected, and lists such as this serve only to bulk up their on-line presence. brenneman{L} 05:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Wikipedia has an established precedent of permiting pages like this, and there is at least one instance of a similar page surviving afd [4]. I don't interpret this as "bulk[ing] up their on-line presence", so much as preserving information for future research. CJCurrie 05:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This "established precedent" seems to be, well, you. Looking at the discussions linked in the CHP pages AfD above, I'm mostly seeing the strong feeling that there is not a place in wikipedia for lists like this. If you'd like a wider net to be cast, feel free to use the WP:PUMP but right now there is no consensus. - brenneman{L} 05:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your assessment: I was the one who proposed the compromise and I obviously take a strong interest in the matter, but I'm certainly not the only one who supports the continued existence of such pages. The list pages provided a functional resolution to a bitter debate, and they've worked as a compromise for over a year. CJCurrie 05:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This "established precedent" seems to be, well, you. Looking at the discussions linked in the CHP pages AfD above, I'm mostly seeing the strong feeling that there is not a place in wikipedia for lists like this. If you'd like a wider net to be cast, feel free to use the WP:PUMP but right now there is no consensus. - brenneman{L} 05:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per comments above. It is useful to store information without clogging up the Wikipedia with articles cribbed if not copied from the website. Capitalistroadster 05:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as CJCurrie pointed out, it is a reasonable compromise. Useful information for future research on Canadian elections. Note that Wikipedia is not paper. Luigizanasi 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per comments above :: Colin Keigher 05:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per CJCurrie. —GrantNeufeld 06:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above comments. -Rob 06:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An article on the Party is a different matter, but failed candidates are not notable. --kingboyk 06:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as status quo compromise. This 'List of...' article is a proactive alternative to individual candidate pages that spring up every election. Theoretically (in my mergist fantasy), all candidates get a redirect page to this kind of list page (or, more practically, as it is practised, all candidates get merged/redirected to such a page once someone creates an article on them). This page solves some rather annoying things, like endless afds on electoral candidates who just want the free ad space and get it for at least the 5 days the afd takes (hint: don't take it to afd, just merge/redirect it to the list pages) and a one-stop shop to monitor for abusive or peacock descriptions of the candidate (opposed to monitoring hundreds of pages during that grace period candidates are normally given during an election). This topic had a centralized discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates; and this proposal came up here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates#A mergist's solution. --maclean25 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced, reading Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, that this compromise has any more consensus than any other. I'm also not sure we need seperate lists for each party, when they are of these lengths. I think I'd be inclined to keep merging these lists to a point where they aren't unwieldy and aren't potential forks and aren't granting undue balance. On the last point, do the major parties also have lists of their failed candidates? If not, we are creating articles on an undue balance basis. At the moment, delete. I could see a value in Candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election, but we're not debating that here. Hiding talk 07:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per CJCurrie. NoIdeaNick 09:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per CJCurrie if there is an established precedent for these articles. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per CJCurrie. --Terence Ong 13:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm at a loss why a party that got way way less than 1% overall (yes, individual ridings varied but they competed in what, 5 ridings tops??? even less than the other party articles Brenny put up today) needs an article about a particular election outcome. I think merging this stuff with the main party article is the way to go. To those that cite other party articles, as examples that it should be done this way, I suggest perhaps that other minor party articles need the same merging/purging treatment too. Nothing much more could ever be said here, could it? It is with great and over-riding (get it?) joy that I support Mr. Brenny in his noble endeavour. (KIDDING!!! about the noble part I mean...) and therefore I must suggest that the right thing to do here is Merge with redirect... (from the GRR airport, yay for wireless access) ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the Christian Heritage Party. I find this information useful, and I find its unmerged location helpful.Captainktainer 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per comments above Funky Monkey (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a vanishingly small amount of encyclopedic information in this article, and the others. Why do we care what some irrelevant loser (yes, really, he lost) describes himself as? Why is the percentage information not properly in context in the main article about the election? Why do we care a fig, frankly, who failed to get a single candidate elected and who, judging from the article were of approximately zero impact at all levels. Add a passing mention to a main article, and delete. -Splashtalk 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to the first point: the page is a work-in-progress, and more information will be added. CJCurrie 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Also, the above user has no prior contributions apart from the CHP afd. CJCurrie 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and apart from my other 25,000 or so. Deleting it now will save you the trouble of writing a collection of nn-bios on the used car salesmen that lost elections. Add some encyclopedic statistics to a main article and move on. -Splashtalk 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To the first point: my apologies, but you signed anonymously the first time (subsequently corrected). In any case, I'll reiterate that an afd decision and afd precedent supports the compromise. CJCurrie 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One prior AfD decision (that was probably wrong) and little to no precedent. I don't think that either justify spending pixels explaining what someone with <1% of the vote "describes himself as". Adding a summary percentage somewhere relevant, would be fine, of course. I don't understand the reluctance to do so and be done with. -Splashtalk 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we'll have to disagree on the latter point. To the former: it's not just one decision, it's a full year's worth of precedent on this forum. CJCurrie 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One prior AfD decision (that was probably wrong) and little to no precedent. I don't think that either justify spending pixels explaining what someone with <1% of the vote "describes himself as". Adding a summary percentage somewhere relevant, would be fine, of course. I don't understand the reluctance to do so and be done with. -Splashtalk 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To the first point: my apologies, but you signed anonymously the first time (subsequently corrected). In any case, I'll reiterate that an afd decision and afd precedent supports the compromise. CJCurrie 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and apart from my other 25,000 or so. Deleting it now will save you the trouble of writing a collection of nn-bios on the used car salesmen that lost elections. Add some encyclopedic statistics to a main article and move on. -Splashtalk 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to the first point: the page is a work-in-progress, and more information will be added. CJCurrie 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Also, the above user has no prior contributions apart from the CHP afd. CJCurrie 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A minor party, but at least a notable one. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable for what? All they seem to have done is sort-of exist briefly, once. -Splashtalk 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They still exist. CJCurrie 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have the run in any elections other than in 2004? What I'm getting at is that neither the party nor the people have ever had an impact on anything and so don't belong anywhere, save a mention that the party scored a vote or two in the main election article. That really is all they've done, right? Or have they done something else that is mentionable? -Splashtalk 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They fielded candidates in 2000 and 2006 (and they didn't exist before 2000). The party most certainly did have an impact on the national debate on cannabis legislation. I believe it's established that the individual candidates don't (automatically) deserve bio pages, but they remain public figures and merit some coverage in a review of the nation's political history. Anyway, I'm not sure this debate is getting us anywhere. CJCurrie 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that is established, and I'm reasonably conversant with AfD. I don't think that a single AfD in which the key assertion was "other articles exist" i.e. a repetition of the argument used here, making it at best a tail-biting assertion. The statistical info in this article can be and already is elsewhere. There is not much added by this article: I mean, why does it matter that "Zupansky has described himself as a business owner and salesperson"? The only reason this debate might not get us anywhere is if people decide not to engage in it: asserting that it should be overruled by a largely non-existent precedent. -Splashtalk 20:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They fielded candidates in 2000 and 2006 (and they didn't exist before 2000). The party most certainly did have an impact on the national debate on cannabis legislation. I believe it's established that the individual candidates don't (automatically) deserve bio pages, but they remain public figures and merit some coverage in a review of the nation's political history. Anyway, I'm not sure this debate is getting us anywhere. CJCurrie 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have the run in any elections other than in 2004? What I'm getting at is that neither the party nor the people have ever had an impact on anything and so don't belong anywhere, save a mention that the party scored a vote or two in the main election article. That really is all they've done, right? Or have they done something else that is mentionable? -Splashtalk 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the party is notable and this information could be useful for scholarly research. Wstaffor 23:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per CJCurrie and others. Ground Zero | t 04:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per CJCurrie. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per CJCurrie. Bucketsofg 22:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep informative. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:48
- Delete. The article about the party is fine (and is not up for deletion that I know of). This "list of failed candidates" page, on the other hand, is not inherently encyclopedic. I do not agree with the statements above that there is any precedent to keeping such pages. Note: This page has already proliferated to Marijuana Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. If allowed to continue, Wikipedia will be flooded with such unmaintainable pages. Rossami (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Ttranswiki to Wikisource. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic, this article is simply a verbatim excerpt from 1990 U.S. document without context Richard 05:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Excerpt from primary source seems to fall under - Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources.--blue520 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wikisource, where this sort of thing belongs. I'll keep the page on my watchlist and may get around to working up a summary and/or crossref with other executive orders. Captainktainer 16:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wikisource, per above. Richard 18:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to wikisource Funky Monkey (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wikisource, as per above. Wstaffor 23:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wikisource. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:49
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 moved to WikiSource. Mailer Diablo 15:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WP:Cleanup
December 27 2005
- Executive Order 12711 - Excerpt from 1990 executive order regarding Chinese nationals, completely lacking context. Saint Midge 03:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This should be deleted. It is simply an excerpt from a 1990 U.S. government document (executive order), posted by an anonymous user, probably copied from here: [5]John Broughton 23:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominated for deletion. Richard 05:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is basically an advertisement. While there is not a specific "no adverts" policy, it comes close enough to a vanity page to merit deletion. Don't you have your own web page or something? Pfagerburg 05:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note - found the above on Talk:TJ2K Software and copied it here as the nominator Pfagerburg did not create the AfD discussion page.--blue520 07:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Blue520, I screwed up on the AfD. I appreciate the fix. --Pfagerburg 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom- sounds like a cool company, but it needs a better writeup and some recognition in the broader community. Captainktainer 16:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - pm_shef 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as self-promo. Wstaffor 23:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as vanity. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:53
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single result in Google, Yahoo, or Ask.com. Violates WP:V and should therefore be deleted. The redirect page Digial nitrate prize should also be deleted - Mboverload 06:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not sure if my vote counts since I created the vote =P --Mboverload 06:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It would be a neat idea if it were real, but unless someone demonstrates that it is, it's got to go. --John Nagle 06:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems to have problems with WP:V & may fall under WP:NOT - crystal ball as the article notes "A group is forming to determine the rules of the competition and to raise money for the prize".--blue520 06:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Kukini 12:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unverifiable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, possible hoax. --Terence Ong 13:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverifiable Funky Monkey (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello.. it is a real prize and, like the X-Prize, is constantly raising new funding. That will go on until the initial prize is won. There is a Yahoo group for the prize and several film festivals are announcing participation. It involves many members of the film and archive community and will become better known over time. The fact that fundraising is going on (perpetually) shouldn't count against it. It also takes forever to show up in Google! :-) The "official" website is under construction. Thanks. Movieresearch 19:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's the verification of this? When it becomes better known, then it's time to put it in Wikipedia. --John Nagle 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now I know this whole process seems kind of anal to you. But you are MORE than welcome to resubmit once you have a website and some media coverage. --Mboverload 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless verified in some way. Wstaffor 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:54
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Website does not seem to meet WP:WEB. ~ PseudoSudo 06:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems to fail WP:WEB or at least assert is notability to that level. May be very new as alexa has no traffic data for it and there are only two threads in the pages forum and no posts in the classifieds.--blue520 07:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. New site being promoted here. Five Google hits, most of which are not relevant. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 13:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Weblog software, and even then only as a link/another example of a blog hosting service. As soon as/if it impacts human existence more than Joe's Home Page let's reopen the article. Captainktainer 16:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per blue520. RexNL 19:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB. Wstaffor 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Weblog software, as per User:Captainktainer -- User:Lot1vot32 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First contribution to Wikipedia Lot1vot32? -- Lot2vot32 00:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First contribution to Wikipedia Lot2vot32? Fagstein 04:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First contribution to Wikipedia Lot1vot32? -- Lot2vot32 00:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable website. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:54
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN band :: Colin Keigher 07:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article seems to not show or assert notability of the band to the level of WP:MUSIC.--blue520 07:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. -AED 07:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 13:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. Wstaffor 23:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not complicated enough for me. Delete (no assertion of notability). Fagstein 04:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable band. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:55
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep.... Mailer Diablo 07:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Previous nomination is here.)
I categorically demand removal of this page from main article space. It blatantly and openly defies the major requirement of wikipedia: Verifiability. What is more, the fans of sexual slurs persistently link it from the normal article, List of sexual slurs. This is total disrespect of the major rule of wikipedia. Also article forks are forbidden in wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 07:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. The last AFD closed a little over three weeks ago and this is actually the third nomination. There has been no dramatic change in the article, Wikipedia policy, or the Wikipedia community in general since the last AFD. Thus, the will of the community has already been determined. Can another administrator please close the debate.--Primetime 07:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Wikipedia:verifiability policy is not revoked yet. And if you care to read it, you will find that it is one of the three cornerstone ones which are non-negotiable. `'mikka (t) 08:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - With so many people voting to keep the last time around, why hasn't anyone bothered to merge it? Especially given this article's enormous importance? Primetime is right in noting that this is too soon to reconsider, but it should be a moot point anyways. Tijuana Brass 07:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The editors at "List of sexual slurs" want to merge them as they are sourced. They won't allow unsourced entries into the article for the time being. They don't want to delete them all, either.--Primetime 07:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They have to move it into user space and don't link to it from articles, since this is a raw unverified source for future proper text. `'mikka (t) 08:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The editors at "List of sexual slurs" want to merge them as they are sourced. They won't allow unsourced entries into the article for the time being. They don't want to delete them all, either.--Primetime 07:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This practice of renominating for AfD until the desired result is achieved absolutely must end. If the community says "Don't delete it" more than once, it's a no-brainer that it should be kept. Captainktainer 16:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - to discourage renomination harrassment. --Darkfred Talk to me 18:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait until I start harrassing this bullshit for real. If the article will sit in the article space, and you continue to link it from other wikipedia articles, I have all rights to apply wikipedia:Verifiability to it and delete all what smells suspicious. If you don't want to follow rules, I will join the game. `'mikka (t) 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CLOSE AS BAD FAITH NOMINATION - This comment is a possibly block-able violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and a threat to WP:POINT. The current AFD doesn't meet speedy keep criteria with valid delete votes, but I would recommend that a closing administrator end it as a bad faith nomination and abusive behavior by nominator. Georgewilliamherbert 01:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, now. I am warning you (rather than threatening) that I am going to exercise my rights of an editor as applied to the article visible in the article space. I didn't do this before, because I thought at least one of dirt-word-lovers has a common sense. But this crowd persistently reverted my minimal changes aimed at minimal compliance with wikipedia rules. Now they are going down onto me with full forse. No more warnings. Now I will not speak but act as soon as this article pops up anywhere in the main article space. `'mikka (t) 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CLOSE AS BAD FAITH NOMINATION - This comment is a possibly block-able violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and a threat to WP:POINT. The current AFD doesn't meet speedy keep criteria with valid delete votes, but I would recommend that a closing administrator end it as a bad faith nomination and abusive behavior by nominator. Georgewilliamherbert 01:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait until I start harrassing this bullshit for real. If the article will sit in the article space, and you continue to link it from other wikipedia articles, I have all rights to apply wikipedia:Verifiability to it and delete all what smells suspicious. If you don't want to follow rules, I will join the game. `'mikka (t) 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Darkfred Funky Monkey (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per too soon of nomination since last nom. VegaDark 20:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per too soon, and anyhow people throwing their toys out the pram and "absolutely demand"ing anything just pisses me off. Jcuk 21:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Lame. --Mboverload 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It violates WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:WINAD. Erik the Rude 22:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep slightly notable, and may provide some meaningful knowledge. Wstaffor 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- the real article, List of sexual slurs, is notable, but not this fork. By the way, forks are forbidden in wikipedia as well. `'mikka (t) 23:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE This page was again linked from main article space, which is inadmissible by wikipedia standards. What is wrong with the common sense? I genuinely fail to understand why the unverified content cannot be stored at the Talk:List of sexual slurs while the fwork is in progress? `'mikka (t) 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Storing it on the talkpage would make the slurs harder to find for visitors. We were considering placing them on a subpage of the talkpage and then adding a link to it. Would that be acceptable to you?--Primetime 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely my point: Making nonverifiable content visible to wikipedia users (as you say, "visitors") is inadmissible. If you start doing this, it will open doors to all kinds of legalized POV pushing in subpages, linked from main article space. I have nothing against slurs; I am liberally using them myself (and sometimes reprimanded in wikipedia). In this case I am pursuing the major rule of wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 23:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you understand. Viewers must have a way to see the list. It can either be a subpage of the talk page linked from the article, or a subpage of the main page linked to the article. Either way, there must be a link to it. If I created a subpage on the talk page and linked to it from the main article, would you remove it?--Primetime 00:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you understand. wikipedia:Verifiability policy says that encyclopedia readers must not see unverified information. Encyclopedia editors can find this page, e.g., by link from the article talk page. `'mikka (t) 00:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely my point: Making nonverifiable content visible to wikipedia users (as you say, "visitors") is inadmissible. If you start doing this, it will open doors to all kinds of legalized POV pushing in subpages, linked from main article space. I have nothing against slurs; I am liberally using them myself (and sometimes reprimanded in wikipedia). In this case I am pursuing the major rule of wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 23:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I reluctantly vote keep, because I would have voted "delete" if I'd seen the last AfD. But the other voters are right, the AfD process shouldn't be overused. -Will Beback 09:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page is empty Deon555 07:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is an update now, and it is fancruft :: Colin Keigher 07:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 09:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Knucmo2 13:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:CRUFT. --Terence Ong 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:CRUFT is not a policy document. Your fancruft might be my life's work (it isn't and I have no interest, but still). It's poorly written and needs to be tagged for cleanup (bearing in mind that the current update has been around for one day), but let's give the contributors some time to work with it. Captainktainer 16:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It may not be policy, but the document also states that: "Non-canon fanfiction, in whatever fictional realm, is rarely considered encyclopaedic." There's plenty of other policies that could be used here, such as WP:NFT. Danny Lilithborne 21:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fancruft Funky Monkey (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fancruft Computerjoe's talk 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if rewritten as per Captainktainer. Grafikm_fr 20:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of verifiability. Ziggurat 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless edited to meet WP:V. Wstaffor 23:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:FICT. Fan fiction characters are non-notable until proven otherwise. --Metropolitan90 03:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevant policy: WP:CORP
Advertisement, no indication of being notable. Contested PROD. Sandstein 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. (Please watch for sockpuppets in this vote.) -AED 07:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --blue520 08:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The name in question is a proper name of a group involved in Natural Language Processing, it in fact is mentioned in some printed matters (unfortunately not available on-line, but nevertheless it indicates notability). The article follows the "neutral point of view rule" so it should be not considered an advertisement. 84.40.142.82 17:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you cite these sources in the article (see WP:CITE) and explain what specific notability criterion of WP:CORP this company (or group, or whatever) fulfils. Sandstein 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Funky Monkey (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't think that the non-notability applies if this entity is said to be mentioned in print, isn't it ? Mobster lobster 19:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC) — This is this user's first and to date only edit. Sandstein 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Being mentioned in print" is not enough. As per WP:CORP, the corporation must have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion excludes: Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories." Please cite these sources in the article. Sandstein 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am not familiar with the publications mentioned (if there are any) but I've checked google and there are no other companies using this name, so I think this article can stay as there is no risk of misinformation. 213.158.197.33 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Misinformation is not the problem. Notability is. Read WP:CORP. Sandstein 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wiki is about providing information, not about conducting lawsuits. Sandstein, you probably noticed that most people talking here are satisfied with this article. Or maybe they are far more interested in efforts in the NLP (even very tiny ones) than in your personal vendetta :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.6.241.10 (talk • contribs)
- Keep As above. I would really see the article here. Leave it alone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.77.194 (talk • contribs)
- You're going to have to provide some better reason than that. Fagstein 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Vox populi vox dei ;)) ...and I don't think this entry is in conflict with Wikipedia spirit 64.9.205.95 21:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete The article is nothing. No meaningful text, not sourced, and seems to be completely non-notable. Wstaffor 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepYes, the article is small, but it links to an interesting site. My suggestion is that the authors copy some content (eg. more details on the algorithms or the approach they use) from their www to make the article more informative. 64.9.205.95 00:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Please keep copyright considerations in mind. Cutting and pasting is frowned upon unless it's from a website that has released its content into the public domain and/or GFDL or equivalent. Fagstein 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Double vote crossed out. Fagstein 08:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. To the contrary. In the discussion this name was said to be quoted so I guess it is notable. 05:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.77.194 (talk • contribs)
- Obvious delete Not only is no assertion of notability made, but none could be essayed; even were the article fully developed, the subject would still be non-notable per WP:CORP. I concur with Sandstein and AED that one must watch sockpuppetry here. Joe 05:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CORP refers to 'companies and corporations' (which I understand as commercial organizations), I have visited the webpage provided in this article and it seems that this entity is a non-commercial group (at least so far their products are available for free) so I guess this article should be exempt from the WP:CORP— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.197.33 (talk • contribs)- Non-profit corporations are still corporations. I don't see how the notability guidelines don't apply here. Under what criteria would a non-profit be notable where a for-profit wouldn't be? Fagstein 08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Duplicate vote crossed out. Fagstein 08:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per the above unsigned individual. Not familiar with the company but it reads as a non-profit organization. Almost Famous 07:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAgree with the exemption. But PLEASE expand the content. Mobster lobster 07:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mobster lobster, you voted already above. Please stop the sockpuppetry, it's not helping you. We can see if a user is very new and the administrators will discount such opinions. As to the company, it does look very much like a for-profit entity (with links like "Portal for Business Partners" etc.) and even if it were not, it would still have to establish notability. Sandstein 07:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that I am new here does not mean that I cannot state my opinion. Is this place for people who search for informatio or for people who spend their time harrasing other people ? Sorry for the double voting, but double voting is NOT a sockpupettery ("A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name.", I use only one, the undersigned). Moreover I suspect you Sandstein (a.k.a. Fagstein, not to mention TheBernFiles on Wikimedia Commons, am I right ?) that you use sockpuppetery yourself. I would suggest that the authors re-classify the article to something less controversial like 'non-profit organizations' or move to a domain-related classification (like: 'search techniques' or 'NLP'). Mobster lobster 08:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Nice try though. Check our edit histories. Fagstein 08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate vote crossed out. Fagstein 08:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As above. 83.27.118.57 19:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What with this edit histories ? I don't think I understand :((( Mobster lobster 08:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit histories (also known as User contributions) are a usefull test for sock puppety (not for meat puppets though), if the edit times over lap then it is very dificult for the two users to be puppet and master. For example if you check the edit histories for Fagstein and Sandstein you would find at least one over lap, with the edits at 05:10 (UTC) on 7 April 2006.--blue520 10:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable - rampant sock puppetry in this discussion is also a concern Barneyboo (Talk) 08:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure this is the sockpuppettery ? Please show some evidence, because without any your comment sounds just like pure insult.
- I agree that unless some evidence is given the accusations of sockpuppettery are a nuisance. As for the discussion I would Keep the article provided some more content is supplied by the authors. I think that Wikipedia should promote the efforts in the machine processing of natural language. Keep up the good work ! 83.16.100.150 09:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Sifl and Olly would be proud of their brethern here, though. RasputinAXP c 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article tagged for a merge in Feb.[6] and received no attention. This page should be deleted because the information is redundant and offers no reason why it should be a separate article. In fact, the article admits its "an extension of Tyndale Theological Seminary." Arbusto 07:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Tyndale Theological Seminary. Arbusto 07:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Captainktainer 16:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Funky Monkey (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above --Mboverload 22:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect per Arbustoo. Wstaffor 23:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 08:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not valuable enough to wikipedia. - Richardcavell 12:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redundant. --Terence Ong 16:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this article gives somebody's analysis on who they think what the all-time A's team is. In other words, it's sombody's opinion, not fact. I think that would constitute a "critical review" and violates WP:NOT Dspserpico 08:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete great team, but WP:OR -- Samir (the scope) 09:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The selection of the best player on a team by any given website is not notable. NoIdeaNick 10:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Funky Monkey (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above Trebor 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above --Mboverload 22:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR. Wstaffor 23:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fascinating, but not notable. Fagstein 05:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for choosing Campy over Miggy. -- 160.5.82.208
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. A pro-wrestling website that does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for articles on websites. Delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The number one website for wrestling news according to Alexa.com. Lords of Pain (Wrestlingheadlines.com) is known throughout the internet wrestling community as the place for news and columns in regards to professional wrestling.Zuma 20:05, 12 June, 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. 143,000 Google hits from a variety of different and independent sites treating it as a source and an object of news in and of itself establishes notability. This is an important part of the Web wrestling community, and should be treated as such. Based on just a cursory overview of the web content, the site has a significant presence on the web. Wikify it, NPOV it, but let's not just outright delete it. Captainktainer 16:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no awards / being subject of notable published works (WP:WEB) AndyZ t 19:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB - pm_shef 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB. Wstaffor 23:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Mirasmus 03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete the article. Categories go to the CfD if needed, not AfDs. Mailer Diablo 07:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Criteria for inclusion unclear - as its worded it could include countless incidents. The article has been here since October 2005 and has not been expanded beyond a single entry, which makes me wonder if it's there only to make a point. Category:Drug scandals should also go for the same reasons. I@n ≡ talk 08:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "List of drug scandals" but Strong Keep for the category. --Lockley 21:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article, but I agree with Lockley, Keep the category. Wstaffor 23:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No expansion/research == attack article. Shenme 02:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by User:Davodd (vanity). - Mike Rosoft 11:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. The title is incorrect, so could at least be moved; and after listing it for speedy deletion, the user (Thereandbackagain) removed the template. Obviously self-promotion. – Jared Preston 08:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above: Vanity. – Jared Preston 08:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --blue520 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clear vanity. NoIdeaNick 10:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Vanity, need I say more? Dspserpico 10:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No released albums, I see nothing that would help this meet WP:BAND. --Hetar 08:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn band :: Colin Keigher 09:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Will you please investigate before you claim nn. They are notable all around the World and not just an ordinary cover band. --ElectricEye 13:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, WP:BAND are "merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind". Electric eye also notes that WP:BAND says: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: ... For performers outside of mass media traditions: ... Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. NPR has covered them after many many many local publications around the world have covered them". For great justice. 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Will you please investigate before you claim nn. They are notable all around the World and not just an ordinary cover band. --ElectricEye 13:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They are notable in local music scenes around the World. --ElectricEye 13:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See MiniKiss: Life in a Little People Cover Band, NPR, Pop Culture, April 14, 2006 --ElectricEye 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: They also had a bit on MTV's Best Week Ever this past week, and pretty much treated as a sick joke on a par with circus geeks of a bygone day. This may be crossing the notoriety bar, if not in a way they might appreciate. RGTraynor 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per ElectricEye. NPR is a reliable source for determining noteworthiness. Captainktainer 16:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is being deleted because the nominator is not interested in little people bands, and so thinks that no one else should be able to read about them. This highlights the problems with the concept of notability. Just because they have a relatively targetted audience, someone will think we should remove them. For great justice. 21:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User:For great justice, many articles go through this process and it helps to bring about discussion. Stay objective and comment on content. Making personal comments about others ("nominator is not...."), can get one into trouble in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Wikiki!!! ^_^ --User:ElectricEye (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks EE, I did not think that there was anything in my comment that could be called a personal attack. I don't think the nominator would disagree with my reasoning, but if they do, I would invite them to correct me. For great justice. 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User:For great justice, many articles go through this process and it helps to bring about discussion. Stay objective and comment on content. Making personal comments about others ("nominator is not...."), can get one into trouble in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Wikiki!!! ^_^ --User:ElectricEye (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am a little surprised that they could be regarded as a band since they were reported in Hustler magazine in 2004 as: "The band isn't really playing their instruments. In fact, their guitars are made out of wood, and they're singing "karaoke-style" over a Kiss CD." I was advised by the main editor of the Mini Kiss article that "lip-synching is a common practice amongst cover bands." While that may be so, are cover bands that don't even play notable - surely not as bands, perhaps as entertainment acts?--A Y Arktos\talk 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Take a look at Lip-sync#Singers_that_have_been_caught_lip-synching before you make a case that singing your own material has anything to do with being a band. Splitting hairs about when a 'band' becomes an 'entertainment act' is going to have huge repercussions on other articles. For great justice. 22:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would distinguish between those who have ben caught lip synching and those who have never done anything else. I understand that Mini Kiss only lip synchs, hence presumably why there are no recordings. Those listed at Lip-sync#Singers that have been caught lip-synching have all claimed to make recordings. I assume people go to see them because they like the music of Kiss and they like looking at little people.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not presume to know why they go to see them, but the issue of lip-synching, whether sometimes or all the time, is a red herring as far as deletion goes. For great justice. 23:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Take a look at Lip-sync#Singers_that_have_been_caught_lip-synching before you make a case that singing your own material has anything to do with being a band. Splitting hairs about when a 'band' becomes an 'entertainment act' is going to have huge repercussions on other articles. For great justice. 22:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Oh, I wouldn't remotely consider them notable as a band. That they do seem to be notable on their own is another matter altogether. RGTraynor 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am a little surprised that they could be regarded as a band since they were reported in Hustler magazine in 2004 as: "The band isn't really playing their instruments. In fact, their guitars are made out of wood, and they're singing "karaoke-style" over a Kiss CD." I was advised by the main editor of the Mini Kiss article that "lip-synching is a common practice amongst cover bands." While that may be so, are cover bands that don't even play notable - surely not as bands, perhaps as entertainment acts?--A Y Arktos\talk 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep:I have seen them multiple times on VH1. They are definitely notable. -Bottesini 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but the article needs to be expanded and sourced. Wstaffor 01:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, cult band, treated as notable by media like Village Voice, even though the whole spectacle reminds me of what Lenny Bruce said about well-intended freak shows. Monicasdude 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: Although I don't believe the band to be of particular notability in the music realm (I'd be wary of them calling a cover band, perhaps cover performers would be the more accurate representation...), I do believe they are notable. ALthough I hadn't heard that particular NPR piece, they were mentioned in a question in last week's Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! (stump the listener I think?). Although I don't particularly respect this kind of exploitation (the one in process by the performers themselves), I won't allow that bias to ignore the likely notability of this band. However, the article needs and will need a lot of work. ••\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\•• 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to have received news converage. Fagstein 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep they're notable now (why, for the life of me, I don't know) due to a spat with another (you, dear reader read right-- there are two) all-"vertically-challenged" KISS tribute band over whom should exist... Pat Payne 22:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the session on Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! of the April 15 show was based on LA Times article of 11 April. They are notable, but as per not just me above, as performers or entertainers, not as a band.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A database of movies that is designed to help independent filmmakers connect with film agents. The fact that it only started this year has been edited out. Advert - the creator user:Lachiusa has contributed nothing else. Sorry Lachiusa, as always, wait until someone else writes about it. -- RHaworth 09:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not yet ready for Wikipedia.--blue520 09:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, OR. RGTraynor 14:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wstaffor 01:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Fagstein 05:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by User:Davodd ("hoax/fiction/test"). - Mike Rosoft 11:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly nonsense. I'm also attempting to "bundle" Omega Delta (legend) in here because the two pages only link to each other and are both apparently of the same origin. Appropriate Username 09:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Delete both, but a question what was wrong with the proposed deletion of both of them?--blue520 09:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a related image Image:Insignia.jpg, which I am attempting to figure out how to add in as well. Appropriate Username 10:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.