Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MLA (talk | contribs) at 13:54, 14 July 2006 (AfD Le Sueur-Henderson Football Team). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 13 July 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was DELETE. fails music and bio criteria. --Madchester 21:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance O'Neal

15 google hits on this name, none of which seem to correspond to this person. Doesn't meet WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, or anything else Xyzzyplugh 23:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Fails notability criteria. --Madchester 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UEK

Delete. Non-notable artist. Nothing relevant can be found from Google that isn't a mirror site of Wikipedia. ... discospinster talk 00:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. nn corp. --Madchester 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scout/Light Line Distributors,Inc.

Article originally tagged with {{prod}} with reason, NN company per WP:CORP. Only 6 ghits for term "Scout/Light Line Distributors, Inc." Prod tag removed without any reason given and without any real revision to article to show how it complies with WP:CORP. Agent 86 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Anyone who wishes to transwiki it - just axe me! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Units in Advance Wars

Gamecruft and game-guide. This article is unverified and unverifiable, there's no source for any of this information in this article, other than the implicit primary source, and the units of Advance Wars are not widely discussed outside of how-to guides. Additionally, a great deal of this article is itself a how-to guide: the merits and flaws of various weapons are constantly touted.

Relevant precedent in other AFDs: two weapon lists for the Resident Evil series, a list of weapons in Cave Story, and a list of Pokémon attacks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add comment: I'd like to point out two reasons why I think this couldn't be considered a game guide, and thus should be kept:
  • Accesability: What I mean is, even if you had never played Advance Wars you could still get something out of it; and if you did it's basically all stuff you learn from just looking at the unit summaries in-game. Heck, it really has little value to someone who's familiar with the game's units already; the article has very little in the area of solid tactical strategy (some spots, such as the Recon section, do have some game guide-ish things in them).
  • Little statistical info: At one point in this article's lifespan tables with statstical info about each unit were added in [4] I later removed the tables on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a game guide. I think at that point it had probably crossed the line into game guide territory (although there was still very little in the way of things such as game strategies). The article basically just provides a general summary of what each unit does (ie it shoots this, it's more powerful than this, etc).
I don't know if that's going to sway anyone at all, but just throwing out my opinions is all. --gakon5 23:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE nn-web comic --Madchester 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad the Vampire

Yet another non notable webcomic, seen here. "Brad the vampire" generates 40 Google hits, whereas an Alexa lookup of the site gives zero stats. - Hahnchen 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Also, length of time on Wikipedia should not be a deterrent in AfDing articles... I had this article deleted after it had spent nearly four years here! Grandmasterka 08:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Pants

This article has been on Wikipedia ages, but I've not come across it until now. It's another webcomic, seen here. I had fallen into the trap of think it was notable just because we've had the article so long, like an editor did at this afd when suggesting a merge. 88 Google links for the phrase "Okay pants" is not good, and many of these links have nothing to do with the webcomic and none of them come from respected sources. Alexa shows a ranking of 400,000 for those interested. - Hahnchen 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete... I wish someone could have responded to the weak keep though! If needed, take it to WP:DRV. Grandmasterka 08:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otaku no yen

Another webcomic, found [5] by a group called Guardian Sun Studios. You can also take a look at their swanky Unencylopedia page at Uncyclopedia:Otaku no Yen. Googling "Otaku no yen" -emulator brings up 130 links (otaku no yen seems to be a gameboy emulator also). 130 links is not a lot, and many of these links are to japanese language pages. I can't read japanese, but looking at the links on these sites, they didn't seem to refer to this webcomic as I couldn't find a relevent link. Alexa returns figures of 1.6 million. Contrary to The History section of the article, I doubt somewhat that this has reached levels of "international fame" - Hahnchen 00:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Discuss any potential name changes on the talk page. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academic seduction

Neologism. Apparently only Wikipedia and its mirror sites use this term: [6] Also contains lots of unsourced content for an article that boils down to "professors and students sometimes date each other". Opabinia regalis 00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article begins by connecting the issue to sexual abuse, it's hardly an article about "professors and students sometimes date each other". Mary Kay LeTourneau used the same techniques, as do other predatory teachers. (I've revised the article to include relationships with underage students.) The "Mother-father figure" outlined on the SHS Types of Harasserspage would be a good inclusion here as it outlines how these types of personalities operate. I think the article should stay, but be expanded upon to include the effects of such relationships, the psychology of the teachers who engage in the behavior, and all information should be sourced.Aine63 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the direct sexual abuse connection is one of the statements I have a problem with, since there's nothing inherently abusive in a teacher-student relationship. It's good that you're interested in the subject, but maybe there should be a more general article, or subsection of sexual abuse, dealing with power differentials in general. This title is a total neologism and the article history has more removals of dubious content than additions of good content. Opabinia regalis 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, and one that should be added as there are some good student-teacher relationships, and even some happy marriages that have come from student-teacher relationships. A move to sexual abuse would be very appropriate for the type of behavior that this article is really discussing. Either way, if the editors decide to do this move or not, I volunteer to flesh out this section myself, using good source material, and there is quite a bit of it. Aine63 01:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • here are some real life examples of the problem, in both universities and secondary school: Naomi Wolf: The Silent Treatment SESAME survivor stories. It's a much bigger problem than most people are aware of. Aine63 02:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't there a better name for this? I know that teacher-student dating is often prohibitted by schools. — Reinyday, 01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge per above. JChap (Talk) 02:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One study, conducted on psychology students, reports that 10% had sexual interactions with their educators. Aww man! I totally should have put the moves on my math teacher!!! --Xrblsnggt 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic --Peta 04:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can rewrite & source this article and find a proper name for it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep let's give the above editors some time, so long as they are willing to work on it a bit. AdamBiswanger1 14:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably rename to academic sexual abuse or academic sexual harrassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacchiad (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep and move per Bacchiad. This may be inherently POV: the mere invention of the idea strikes me as axegrinding. I'd be inclined to let it provisionally remain to see what it becomes. Smerdis of Tlön 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per Bacchiad. The current title is too POV. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the uncited and unverifiable claims; if there's anything left, keep that. Do not "give people time" to find citations -- unverified claims, particularly controversial ones like the claim in this article that 10% of students have sex with teachers, must be deleted, not kept hanging around for ever in defiance of our clearly stated core policies. — Haeleth Talk 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you follow the link? It's to an abstract of the study that makes the claim. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just corrected various links. To put it simply, the article is currently a mess and needs much more outside sourcing, in particular it needs to source the connection between "seduction" and "abuse". For a recent article that got shot down because it tried to discuss a single academic source at length, see here. ~ trialsanderrors 18:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to a better name. If this title is only used on Wikipedia, then that's a problem. But the phenomenon, and increasingly the coverage and study of said issue, exists. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with new title per Bacchiad or move to Sexual Abuse as the differentiation needs to be made that this is about predatory and abusive behavior, and not all intimacies between students and teachers are bad. Aine63 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to sexual abuse. Zos 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, legitimate topic, move to better name, mark for cleanup and as needing references. The first thing that came to mind when I saw the title was the novel (no, I haven't read it) Professor Romeo by Anne Bernays. Anne Bernays, apparently a redlink, was the daughter of Edward Bernays, and her novel was a bestseller in 1989. In fact, Bernay's novel got two reviews in The New York Times. One of them speaks of "an old and familiar analogy: that teaching is a surrogate love affair, a complex form of seduction. Throughout history (remember the Paolo and Francesca affair) there have been teachers who have taken that analogy all too literally. So on occasion the professor or tutor has been the Don Juan, doing with the body what he (or sometimes she) hopes to do with the mind. Universities are always strangely erotic as well as intellectual communities. That, presumably, is why they have become one of the principal battlefields in the gender wars of the 1980s." (Bradbury, Malcolm, 1989: "Professor Romeo." The New York Times July 23, 1989, p. BR1) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strange title. Contains original research. Yes, the phenomenon exists. Abaelard and Heloise exist. People have witnessed it, myself included. This doesn't mean this article under this title is needed. Dr Zak 05:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • if the title is the only problem, then why not just vote to change the title or move to another section. A poor title is hardly enough of a reason to delete a topic altogether. Aine63 06:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the whole article" is not a "pile of original research," a good number of the points are cited with books and articles. Clearly, you even really looked it over. Aine63 23:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom "Neologism" and per Dr Zak. Even all three of the references label it "Sexual Harassment", I'll change my opinion after it becomes an actual phrase of common usage, perhaps in the press, or when "Presidential seduction" or "CEO seduction", or other similar phrases start to appear. Ste4k 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AdamBiswanger. I agree that the article needs more time and a little clean up. It has a good start though. Agne27 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming article: At this point, the majority say the article should stay, but some feel it should be renamed. I've started a discussion on the article talk page, if people want to vote on this. Aine63 01:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 08:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Sitcom

Deletion nomination Here's the reason I gave the first time round in March 2006 which ended in no consensus: "This is a list from another one of those trivial cheap-to-make "list of the best" TV programs - typically a collection of clips and talking heads of B or C-list celebrities. It has no real authority. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article for every "list of the best" produced out by these tv programs or by popular magazines." Same this time around. Though I want to add in L'esprit de l'escalier (I was distracted and neglected to pay much attention at all towards the end of the first afd) a response to what during the first afd was JJay's reply to my rolling out the rating figures for this program (ratings which I believed to be not very impressive). JJay found those ratings to be impressive and said that we have articles for most of the other programs mentioned in my excerpt. I would now point out out that the one-off show The Ultimate Sitcom's (1.5m viewers) closest peers Get Famous, Get Fit, Get Rich: Celebrity Fitness Videos ... Exposed (1.3m viewers) and Larger than Life - Eating Themselves to Death (2.1m viewers, a program about obese people who can't stop eating) still do not have their own articles, and I hope they never do. The only argument I see coming from the keep voters in the first afd was "the program was probably seen by a huge number of people". There are many trivial programs on TV which get low ratings that still translate to large numbers of people but are insignificant by encyclopedic standards. This is a one-off clip show which is one of these programs. Bwithh 00:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a comprehensive survey of industry insiders. It's just the group of insiders (including actors, not just writers) who agreed to be on the show. It's also dubious how much the few Americans know about British sitcoms (and how much the British know about US sitcoms), and no other country's programs seem to have even been considered. Bwithh 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia article.
  • Keep per JJay. Not sure if you saw this, but it certainly wasn't just a clip show. They spent time talking about how the insiders made their decisions, and talking about how the insiders themselves were selected. Essexmutant 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said that it was a clip show with talking heads. Bwithh 12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per JJ. It is plenty notable, and remember that including someone else's value judgments does not constitute a value judgment on the part of editors. AdamBiswanger1 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was MERGE to Mac OS X. TigerShark 11:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac OS X86

Unofficial neologism, not common enough to warrant an article or redirect. RandyWang (raves/rants) 01:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although Mac OS X86 is a small group it exist nonetheless and it deserves at least an article stating it --Drchoc007 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: How is this any different from Windoze, really? Both are neologisms (WP:NEO), neither are acknowledge by the products' creators, and yet both have found use on in the interweb. There is no information here that could not be comfortably relocated to Mac OS X or a similar page, so this, like Windoze, deserves - at best - to become a redirect. RandyWang (raves/rants) 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Initially looked notable from 69,600 ghits, but is actually only 489. Moreover, it seems to be pretty hard to verify. Also, we should probably merge some of the important information to Mac OS (probably under Mac OS#Emulation): i.e., that it can be hacked to run on windows, which is stated at Wired News, a reliable enough source, I think. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Mac deletions. RandyWang (raves/rants) 03:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provisionally. Maybe I don't understand the argument here. This seems like a real phenomenon (for want of a better word). There are people using this and reading and writing about it. It might be okay merged with Mac OS, but shouldn't the information appear somewhere? This article is badly written, but could be improved I imagine. Rbraunwa 05:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As I said in my comment above here, there's nothing here that couldn't easily be placed on Mac OS X or a similar page. I move that this page either be deleted as an unnecessary neologism, per WP:NOT, or redirected per Windoze to Mac OS X or a similar page (while the information in the article itself should be placed elsewhere, most likely at the page to which it would redirect the reader.) RandyWang (raves/rants) 05:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that it needs extreme improvment in style, syntax, references, etc., but speaking as an expert in the field, this topic is completely different than any mentioned that could include it. It could be expanded to include the history of the marketing decisions made, the impact on Intel, the problems that it caused compared and contrasted to the benefits it provided. Basically it is a completely different computer platform of its own. Another article already exists and is well referenced. There isn't anything to merge that is referenced. To avoid any POV fork, etc., if the other article can be improved, then there isn't any reason not to simply do so. I am changing my vote to Delete. Ste4k 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename if necessary. Bacchiad 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mac OS X. That article needs a section specifically on the Intel builds, and really, there isn't much substance on this X86 page at all. hateless 16:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is not worth an independent article; the three or four sentences the topic merits could quite adequately be covered in Mac OS X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haeleth (talk • contribs)
  • Merge: I hate mac's, but merge this to where it should go. Hacking OS's or a Mac OS article. Zos 19:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I made this article believing that there wasn´t an article about Mac OS X86, but I recently found out that there is a stub that is called OSx86 and I think i should merge this with OSx86 --Dr. Choc 22:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: This should be merged into OSx86, with a redirect pointing to that page. PaleAqua 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 AmiDaniel (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig 'Bert' Roser

Really unnotable English footballer playing for very low-level club. NawlinWiki 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-14 10:14Z

Airborn (film)

Yets to be released movie. Crystal ball, article text largely lifted from ImdB. Artw 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Needs to be categories for each national or subnational entity. Grandmasterka 08:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands and musicians by country

Already 51 kilobytes long, redundant to the lists of musicians and musical groups by country that can be found at Category:Musicians by nationality and Category:Musical groups by nationality. Ezeu 01:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps replace the content with something like that at List_of_musicians#By_location. --Ezeu 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp noir

This article violates WP:NEO, including being unsupported by reliable sources. Jonathan F 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither of the reasons for deletion given in that section apply here. The article goes beyond merely defining the neologism (although I would like to see it go a bit farther). Also, it is not an attempt to track the emergence and use of the term itself, but provides an (admittedly brief and incomplete) treatment of the subject itself. Furthermore, it is already used by reviewers (i.e., (i) experts writing in (ii) popular media) and is thus doubly well-established and not a neologism. JChap (Talk) 13:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I meant to link to the next section, WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms, to show that the presence of "pulp noir" on the Internet, even its use by film critics (Ebert notwithstanding) is not grounds for an article on Wikipedia, which was your previous assertion. A reliable source is needed, and no one has provided proof that in Cornell Woolrich from Pulp Noir to Film Noir (the current article's main secondary source), a book about Woolrich and his writings, pulp noir means anything other than pulp fiction, in this case hardboiled crime fiction. The uses on the Internet you link to seem to reflect this: that pulp noir is hardboiled crime fiction, in literature or film, nothing more. The past and current versions of the article indeed define a new term (see WP:OR#What is excluded?), one meant to indicate a "sub-genre" of film noir, and there is no reliable source to support this. The article only finds instances on the web where the term is ascribed to something when the WP:NEO policy reads:
To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan F (talk • contribs)
  • Ahhhhhhhh-hah. The last sentence. Now I understand your objection. Perhaps explaining this in the nom would have stopped the keep votes. And although the quality of writing has improved and it is better sourced, tt is now a list of uses and thus tracks the term's emergence, rather than discusses the subject itself. Oh, well. It won't be the cruftiest thing here by a long shot. JChap (Talk) 11:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have access to the book to check whether it differentiates between pulp fiction and pulp noir, but the title seems rather clumsy if it doesn't (why not from ...Pulp Fiction to... rather than the ...Noir...Noir..). Perhaps somebody with the book can clear this up. Yomangani 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, have to chime in here since I am responsible for the rewrite (not the original article, I might add). First, I want to address Jonathan F's issues. You can see my Talk page for his full "review" of my edits. I removed the Renzi reference completely since it seems questionable and I admit I misinterpreted what the book is about from the excerpts I have. I have only selected readings from the book, back from a film class I had. If someone has the whole book, maybe they can add it back later if any of it applies to this article. I also rewrote the lead paragraph to more accurately summerize the context of this term as I found it in the other references. As for Jonathan F's other point, I accept it as a valid argument but I disagree that this is a neologism to begin with. It is for this AfD to decide that point, and I still recommend keeping the article. I think "neologism" implies that the term is specialized within a certain community or interest group, but my references clearly indicate widespread usage across different communities and in reliable media. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup looks good, so I've changed my opinion as I said I would - still like to see the definitions of Pulp and Noir removed or referenced though. Yomangani 18:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some more of the unreferenced stuff that I meant to get on the first round. The opening paragraph where pulp noir is defined is derived from the footnoted source. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You got the bit I meant. Nice work. Yomangani 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 plus 2

It can refer to more than what this article covers, including 4 (number). Invitatious (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is, unless you think we should junk the Coupe page too. Moriori 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close since the nominator has no intention of getting the article deleted. If you wish to propose a merge, there's {{mergeto}}, {{mergefrom}}, and talk pages. AfD's not the place for this. Kimchi.sg 21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter Zero 2 Alpha

All the other Street Fighter Alpha pages redirect to Street Fighter Alpha, and this one should too. I vote to Redirect. Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Moses

Gamecruft and duplicate content. The bulk of this article is plot summary of Metal Gear Solid, which already has such a long, overdetailed plot summary that merging this article there would be a bad idea. The only part of this article that isn't plot summary is a wholly unsourced and possibly fanon Features section, which wouldn't be encyclopedic in any case (as the rest of the island doesn't appear in any fictional work). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FlexPoint Source, LLC

Blatant advertising page for non-notable private company. Fails WP:CORP and WP:ADS. Search of Google News produced 0 hits for firm. Satori Son 02:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Clack

Fails WP:BIO. Didn't play professionally and not enough notability as a college player. Delete BlueValour 02:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick Google search shows that Clack has played professionally for teams in Italy, including Pallacanestro Reggiana. Pallacanestro Reggiana is a member of Lega Basket, Italy's premier basketball league. Zagalejo 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Some of the worst NBA players ever, were still some of the best in the world. Only 1 in 1000 make it to the NBA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Summonmaster13 (talk • contribs) . Sorry Summonmaster13 only 1 'vote' per person. BlueValour 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete barely. If he had managed to play in one counting NBA game or be drafted in the first round, I'd vote to keep. But above-average college players with no professional or international experience aren't notable. --EngineerScotty 21:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he does have professional experience -- just not NBA experience. Like I said, he's been playing in Italy [12] [13] [14]. Zagalejo 22:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the stub does not do a good enough job of explaining his accomplishements yet, but he scored 1,500 points as a college player. He is notable enough for his college accomplishments. Johntex\talk 23:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- The nomination is misleading in three regards. Firstly, the article passes WP:BIO, since he was a D-I NCAA player. Secondly, he has played professionally, as noted above. Third, he was a four-year starter at a major college with numbers that ranked him in the top-10 all time among Texas players in several categories [15]. Clearly expandable. -- Mwalcoff 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not so; since there is a professional level D-I NCAA does not satisfy WP:BIO - 'or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States'. BlueValour 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What we need are some well-established notablity criteria for D-I basketball players. The twelfth man on SUNY-Stony Brook probably doesn't deserve an article, but a four year starter for a major program is probably notable based solely on the amount of media exposure he'd receive. Zagalejo 18:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree we need more detail. At present D-1 players are /not/ inherently notable but can attain notability if they prove sufficiently outstanding. The Bio guidelines are presently being reviewed and expanded. BTW I have seen no evidence that the Italian league he plays in meets the 'fully professional league' requirement.
  • Comment -- I believe BlueValour is misinterpreting the relevant WP:BIO section. Discussions at the WP:BIO talk page and AfD precedent indicate that "mainly amateur sports" includes college basketball and college football. I can't imagine a WP:BIO recommendation would allow for articles on college lacrosse players but not on college hoops stars, who are far better known. -- Mwalcoff 02:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What exactly do you mean by "fully professional"? It seems like the average players in Serie A get paid about 10,000 euros per month. (here). Is that good enough? Zagalejo 06:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMarketing

Neologism. So new that the article previously claimed that the term was coined in June 2006, by none other than PJ Conley, which happens to be the name of our friend the author, who has no other contributions and may or may not be affiliated with OMarketing the non-notable consulting firm. It's like a resume for a deleted-article application. Opabinia regalis 02:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No Guru 15:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Hyper-Threading

Technology is fictional[16] Yamla 02:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep! you can rewrite the article because it is not a feature in Rev. F/G K8, but it is a possible feature in K10, although it is mere speculation for K10, but we cannot delete this article for it doesn't exist in K8 and K8L chips and exclude the possibility of being implemented in the future, as there is a report of REVERSE HYPER-THREADING for K10 chips. If anyone doesn't remember that, I recommend them to search in Google[19] before stubbornly(sp?) delete this article. Thank you. --202.71.240.18 07:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's close to 6 million ghits for "unicorns", 15 million for "fairies", 67 million for "aliens"... It's a viral meme for gullible computer amateurs. btw: thanks for the link to google. I never would have found it. --Xrblsnggt 11:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not a possible feature. Aside from Inq's admission that it was a hoax, the very concept would require a massive redesign of the CPU's architecture. It's firmly in the realm of "utterly impossible" with today's (or even tomorrow's) technology. RandyWang (raves/rants) 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a Hoax, right?. Read this first: [20] which is originated: 10 April 2006, and this was the first website suggested AMD was "studying" for a term called "Anti-HT" for AMD K10, and was reported by the Inquirer for Reverse HT in AM2 chips at June 23 2006, while the inquirer admitted that as a hoax for AM2 chips, but not for AMD K10 chips. As said by AMD, K10 is complete core redesign and major core revision. it's possible for reverse HT to be implemented as what RandyWang said above. And finally, I want you to search GOOGLE, not that I do the search for you! Do type in the KEYWORD(s) (i.e. "AMD K10" "anti-HT") and find it yourself!! For the stupid people who doesn't know how to do a search in google, [21] find the title: "X86-secret.com : Highly Technical Hardware Reviews - [ Translate this page ]", click on Translate this page, and see the report. Do not ask me how to search in Google, as most of you (except idiots of the Internet) can do it without anyone's help. Anyone who cannot do a search in Google by entering KEYWORDS themselves do not have the right to be an Wikipedian, as they are totally hopeless! --202.71.240.18 07:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Mostly Rainy 02:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Zero

Festival with no claims of notable insufficient claims of notability - only seems to be slightly notable on a local scale at best. Never seems to have had any notable performers, national coverage, etc... Deleted before with little objection, but apparently can't be speedied. See previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Zero. Wickethewok 02:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that some of the issues from the previous AFD do not apply to this article, as this article is not derived from the previous one. In particular, the objections of needing secondary sources for verifiability and copyvio are irrelevant wrt this article. AFIAK, only notability is in question. --Ravelite 04:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you believe it to be notable, Mr. Vader? Because it was awarded a not particularly notable award by the "alternative" weekly press publication that sponsored the event? It looks like that is the only year they seem to have given out that award. Do the winners of their "Best Drag Queen Award" also need their own articles? Aside from this award, I don't really see any of assertions of notability, unless you count the "one of the largest festivals of it's type in the US", which is both unverified and vague. Wickethewok 05:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Wickthewok. Receipt of non-notabe Awards does not confer notability. -- GWO
  • Weak keep It needs references and some more weight behind its claim of notability, but neither of those need to come from Ghits. If it can be cleaned up I say keep it, otherwise put in a sack and throw it in the lake. Yomangani 14:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --NEMT 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Until more notability is establishedZos 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. More notability evidence: Here's another mention of HZ in the City Paper, the second paragraph of which confirms other press the festival has earned: 2001 city paper reference

The first two years drew press attention from fringe-oriented music magazines such as Cadence and The Wire, but the fest also won the notice of more mainstream outlets such as The Washington Post and National Public Radio's All Things Considered.

Sure, City Paper is an alternative press weekly, but I doubt it's lying.

To confirm the Washington Post references, please visit the archive search and type "High Zero" in quotes, or use this link

Notability of performers: In 2005, Phil Minton performed (listing in performers) and directed a Feral Choir at the festival. He's internationally known as a vocal improvisor who has developed extended vocal techniques since the seventies. If you web search his name, you'll come up with a variety of mentions on jazz sites, sound art sites, and listings in discographies.

On the Music_festivals page, observe that many genres (Jazz, Reggae, Country Music, Dance, etc) have festivals with articles in Wikipedia. However, the avant-garde genres are lumped together (Electronic/Electroacoustic/Experimental/Industrial/Noise/Sound Art) and only given links to outside sites. This may be a case of Systemic bias against these genres.

While editors may consider certain avant-garde genres obscure, their communities and musicians pursue them with as much dedication as in more popular genres. The material may be obscure to some music listeners, but is not a danger to wikipedia. It helps maintain a comprehensive representation of music across stylistic boundaries.

Thanks for the welcome. The quality of my writing will hopefully improve with practice. --Ravelite 01:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A few points:
    • the evidence you cite for notability needs to be included in the article
    • you are free to edit the Music_festivals page to change the layout and links. It's less likely to be systematic bias than lack of interest in these categories from previous editors.
    • Lack of notability isn't a deletion policy (see WP:N). Personally I have a bias against deletion in cases where the article has an active champion unless it fails other tests, as it can be demoralising for editors to spend a lot of time on an article just to see it swept away (regardless of the advice not to be disheartened). Where a notability policy does apply, as with WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO we should apply it, but it seems a shame to remove articles on non-policy grounds when notability is arguable. Yomangani 11:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments! I have added washpost references, as well as mentioning Phil Minton in connection to the festival. Expanding the article will require more research and some time, but if you have any thoughts about it's current or future state, please let me know. --Ravelite 20:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it makes claims for notability and is interesting too Yuckfoo 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon by color

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft and unencyclopedic. The article is also unsourced and can be construed as original research hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka 15:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic Doctrine (Samael Aun Weor)

This author is not notable enough to have this terribly misnamed article in addition to his biography. Integrate this into bio and delete. People can read his books if they want to know more. WP is not a soapbox. -999 (Talk) 02:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not a soapbox - you can apparently read all of his work free here also not too many ghits Fails WP:BIO DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 03:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Michael 06:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "of whom which Samael Aun Weor claims to be directed by." Not in the paths of English grammar, apparently. Tevildo 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that this article needs a major cleanup rather than a delete. The bibliography section should be moved to the bio of Samael Aun Weor and useless info should be removed. The article is too long to be moved to the bio now. I would rather propose an {{attention}} tag.--dead3y3 19:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article needs cleanup. Theres enough information to validate it and the title needs to be fixed. Zos 19:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note: I am the main contributor to this article. I don't believe 'soapbox' is valid here as the vast majority of the article is not promoting anything (although a few sentences certainly need rewording). --Paul Stone 23:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There can be a fine line between explanation and promotion though after perusing the article I do not believe it has crossed into that territory. Save some minor adjustments that should be made the piece stands on its own and the content, quality of writing and expression is of a commendable calibre. I refute entirely the concept of notability so this is a moot point IMHO. At the end of the day the individual has been influential in particular circles and his views appear sufficiently different from theological Gnosticism that a separate article elucidating these is hardly excessive or indulgent, so the article should stay. (Cf1 16:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)) This is this user's only edit this year. User has only edited one other article previously in 2005, for a total of 8 edits, including this one. 999 (Talk) 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Hanuman Das 00:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is plenty of room in the bio, which is full of inconsequential detail. Try being more concise and sticking to the important points, no one cares what the author ate for breakfast on April 22, 1972. Ekajati 21:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found this article highly useful in my research. Samael is notable in Spanish/French circles and has a long shadow there even if he is often passed-over by Anglophones. The article could be tighter but I've yet to find another overview of this doctrine that is as concise and lucid as this one. --Dieudonne 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC) This users first and only edit. -999 (Talk) 21:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE to Sailor Crystal. TigerShark 11:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star seed

delisted this from WP:CSD-- — xaosflux Talk 03:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the Sailor Moon Template is a characters template. I tried, in the past, to add non-character articles to it, but I was reverted. We really should expand it to become a series template and further condense the characters into like articles. --Kunzite 12:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the Sailor Moon wiki has already created an entry. It's common info among fans of the show. --Kunzite 18:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep the subject. Content to be dealt with by WP:CP. Mailer Diablo 09:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip D. Reed

Non-notable bio. He served on many corporate boards, with success, but so what? So have thousands of other people in the world. Nothing especially notable to make him worthy of his own encyclopædia entry. Delete EuroSong talk 03:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we should delete this as copyvio, (or a complete rewrite is nescessary) --Amists 10:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is a cut-and-paste as stated by Mr. Stephen above, however, I am an employee of that institution and am authorized to distribute it. Is there some form of boilerplate text I should use to indicate this and where can it be found? In any case, it is not a violation of copyright since I have permission.Richardjames444 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may be an employee of the institution, but are you an employee who is authorized to release the copyright of corporate material? Typically that would be a very specific person working in a legal capacity. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, admitted fiction —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-14 10:16Z

Quidditch World Cup Results

I just went and checked my well-worn copy of Quidditch Through the Ages, and it does not contain a complete list of Quidditch World Cup winners. In other words, this list is original work (not research, because it must have been made up by the author (in one day at Hogwarts?)) NawlinWiki 03:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Brown Stein

I'm note sure if a trophy played for between two college teams justifies an entry ... please discuss !!! DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 03:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (A7). Pepsidrinka 03:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charity baptist church

No claim to notability. Short almost to speediable proportions, but sadly, I think it provides enough context to avoid it. Prodded, removed by anon without improvement. Morgan Wick 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Nathan Rowan Speer

Notability in dispute. Very few ghits [23] & [24] --NMChico24 04:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipotism

Neologism. --Peta 04:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants the content for another wiki, drop me a note - I'll undelete the material and send it to you. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Character archetypes in the Fire Emblem series

All uncited research. Not verifiable by any stretch of the imagination. Directly from the talk page of the article: "The research originated from GameFAQs" - hardly an encylopedic source. Also nominating Jeigan (archetype), which is the same thing but a specific case. Wickethewok 04:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response - Please read WP:V for more info on verifiability. Note that anyone can submit any information to GameFAQs, which means we can't use it as a source. Also, its preferential that you create a Wikipedia account if you wish to participate on AFD - it makes it easier to keep track of who says what. Wickethewok 05:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The following is a quote from Jimbo Himself on 22 April in the computer and video games bookshelf talk page: " am unaware of any elementary school, high school, or college courses which require computer game walkthroughts as a text. Therefore, these all really MUST be deleted. They are a violation of the educational mission charter of the Wikimedia Foundation! Take your time, find a new home, but this stuff really has to go." Ace of Sevens 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to FEWiki.net. That is the best thing to do with this. It would be the final decision. Here is a quote from FEWiki: "A major factor in the decision to start the FEWiki is the increasing amount of Fire Emblem content becoming available on Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to provide detailed information about almost anything, but the amount of non-encylopedic Fire Emblem content there was getting beyond a joke. And thus it was decided to create this wiki dedicated to Fire Emblem, to allow that sort of content and more." Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 01:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Note that there's nothing stopping you from transwikiing it at any time; you don't have to wait for the AFD to close to stick a copy on the game wiki. Proto::type 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many people in the Fire Emblem fandom agree that most of the "archetypes" listed are not really true archetypes. Therefore, not only is it debatable whether it's encyclopedic, but its reliability concerning its subject is questionable. --Kzer-za 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much of the content is contentious or outright fabricated. --144.137.32.87 02:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jeigan (archetype). "Jeigan" is very much a widely accepted and used term among the Fire Emblem fan base, and while its specifics are debated, the core of its definition is agreed upon. The Jeigan article does at the very least an adequate job of making clear what is accepted by and large universally from what is debated over. However, Character archetypes in the Fire Emblem series is full of partial contradictions to its own wording and defines several terms in a way many would very openly disagree with. It further gives definition to terms effectively never used by even the niche group of the public which it should supposedly be pertinent to, and as such, should definitely be deleted. RunissKnight 22:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nabarl and Oguma sections. Like "Jeigan", "Nabarl" and "Oguma" are also widely accepted and used term among Fire Emblem fans. Nabarl and Oguma are analogous to Swordmaster and Hero. The Nabarl and Oguma sections of the article are long enough to be separate articles. They were originally separate articles. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused what your opinion is, Zanarukando. First you say you object to deletion, then you say "Make Encyclopedic" (whatever that means), and now you say you want to keep some specific part of it. What exactly is your vote/recommendation? Wickethewok 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds consistant to me. They are endorsing a keep with a rewrite to make this fit Wikipedia's goals better (ie remove fancruft). Ace of Sevens 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cars Inc

Probable hoax. If not then definitely NN auto insurance agency. Fails WP:CORP. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 05:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please defer to the article's talk page to resolve the question of merging. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English name of the Persian Language

The article likely contains copyright violations (notice anonymous edit [25] four months after [26] was written), does not maintain a NPOV (written as a position paper), and lacks references. --jonsafari 05:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: Vote stacking may have taken place. Please examine closely. - FrancisTyers · 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per nomination. - FrancisTyers · 08:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per above; it is at least gratifying that the traditional English name of the language, rather than a foreign neologism, is preferred here. Smerdis of Tlön 15:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. --Chris S. 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I dont know why this article poses such a big problem to many. This topic has been the battleground for so many edits, and has been disputed so many many times that it deserves its own article, which by the way can be added to. Having copyvios or lack of sources isn't really a reason to delete an entrie article, according to WP rules. The original source in English appeared in a communique to the Australian Embassy in the 90s, if I recall correctly. The fact that Pejman Akbarzadeh's text is endorsed by CHN should be enough. I cant understand the need for deletion. And it doesnt qualify for deletion according to WP standards anyway.Zereshk 00:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe I need to be a little more direct about this. The whole article was copied from another website. If you revert it back to before this copyvio, it would be another copyvio (from Farhangestan's announcement). –jonsafari 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because of article length. The issue is complex and confusing for many people and it would be nice to have a separate article to avoid that. Khorshid 03:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Basically, everything that's not POV-pushing in that article can be condensed into three or four sentences. And those three or four sentences already exist in Persian language#Nomenclature. By the way, the article should surely also describe who does use "Farsi" (e.g. Ethnologue and other linguists); the lack of such references clearly mark the POV agenda here. And I sense a contradiction: The article implies the problem only became one after 1979, whereas Spectheintro above notes that it had occasioned official declarations earlier, so the problem must have been around for much longer. (Implying that an opposing viewpoint is very recent is of course a well-known cheap propaganda trick of POV-pushing.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was going to say merge at first but I think khorshid has a point. The article is too long to be merged with Persians language it deserve its own page. Gol 08:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletendo. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WiTendoFi

This page fails due to being considered Self-Promotion of a trivial webpage. Delete per WP:N, WP:VAIN. NisMax 04:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 07:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haluwelkyu

Deprodded by article's creator (who is himself a likely sockpuppet). If this isn't a hoax, it's still a dicdef. WP:NOT a dictionary.--Chaser T 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was clown delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clown Mass

Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. For becoming "increasingly common," the so-called "illicit" clown mass is in general not widely talked about.[28] It looks like there are at least a couple verifiable incidents in the U.S. in which a priest and/or his assistants were dressed as clowns for mass, but that doesn't make a "clown mass" practice so much as "masses in which a participant was dressed as a clown." Even if we considered the priests the subjects here (though the article seems more intent on attacking a heretical "practice"), the "most well known" recent priest/clown that the article mentions is apparently not that well known at all.[29] Perhaps if we really dug around we could construct a list of unusual mass costumes, simply given the sheer number of priests around the world and the number of ways in which they could express their own individual approach to the faith or simply try a gimmick to draw attention to the parish. Postdlf 05:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Catholic Blog Nov 18, 2002 has info about a Papal mass where apparently a "clown" led part of it.
This Blog references an article from Fidelity Monthly, a Catholic Magazine and includes the follow dictionary reference and additional source CLOWN MASS: Liturgical innovation comparable to the innovation of Gregorian chant; relevant: “A clown liturgy may sound sacrilegious but those who attended a special Mass at St. Agnes Church described it as moving, uplifting, spirited and colorful” (Catholic Herald, Milwaukee, February 16, 1984).
This blog complains about an Episcopalian Clown Mass
This site uses the "Clown Mass" as an example of what is wrong with Vatican II
And finally, an Episcopal web news mag has an article about the NYC Clown Mass Agne27 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian parcher fish

Hoax: no results on Google for either "Peruvian parcher fish" or the likely misspelling, "Peruvian archer fish." RandyWang (raves/rants) 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Kelly

Subject appears to be a non-notable adult model or non-notable website of adult model. Deleted previously as non-notable or spam, see first nomination. hateless 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Amin al-Hasanat Shah al-Qurashi

Aside from the initial (unsourced) claim that he was "one of the greatest gnostics and spiritual leaders of his time", the article does little to assert the importance or significance of this man above any other run-of-the-mill Islamic scholar. It's actually quite hard to pick out any relevant bits from the article, because it seems to be 90% waffle. Much seems to focus on the achivements and positions of this man's relatives. The subject was politically active in the '60s, but so were a lot of people. I don't see that this man has any special notability. Only 24 Google hits. Aside from all that.. the whole article is extremely POV and smacks of religious preaching: something that does not belong in an encyclopædia. (e.g final paragraph, which begins "Shaykh Amin al-Hasanat is the rightful torchbearer of truth and spirituality"...). Delete EuroSong talk 06:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiair

Fails both WP:WEB and WP:CORP, reads like advertising, and is largely crystal ball gazing. Agent 86 07:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 17:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GLaZeD (comic series)

Fails the Google test - cannot find it at all - and no other related terms return more than one or two results. Possible hoax, or simply vanity.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same user, specifically to expand upon this entry:

RandyWang (raves/rants) 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Koshute

Non-notable biography: the name returns only 26 hits on Google, while "Daniel Koshute" returns only 55. I see no other evidence for notability. RandyWang (raves/rants) 08:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I whole-heartedly disagree. I decided to look up Dan's bands and make a page on Wikipedia because people ask me about Dan Koshute and want information on him. Everything I wrote on that page is absolutely one-hundred-percent factual. You say it's not a notable biography, but people can't look for him if we don't have something for him. He's done a lot of studio recording and he's an unfathomable talent. He plays with lots of people and does tons of gigs, so people would very much benefit from having a source of info avaiable on Wikipedia. If it gets deleted then there's nothing I can do about that but I will be deeply personally insulted as I put a lot of heart and soul into that webpage. There's no word for it other than injustice. I'll puke if in a year Dan Koshute becomes a popular radio artist and you guys deleted my page on him. How big do you have to be to be on Wikipedia? I know artists with ten well-selling independent albums, but they don't get play on VH1 or Clearchannel, does that mean that no one would want information on them or that they're unworthy of being talked about? I can't concieve of any serious ill that having this informative available would do. It's not a vanity piece what-so-ever since I'm not Dan Koshute and I don't even know him personally. I've just seen him perform. I'm nothing but a passionate fan, case in point see the glowing review I gave to Rambling Ron Boone. --AboveGroundSound 08:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember, I'm not disputing the factual accuracy or validity of any of the information in the article: I'm arguing that Dan Koshute is not a notable enough artist to warrant an article of his own in this encyclopedia. Whether he is famous in a year's time or not is irrelevant, really, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we live in the here and now, so we need to look at the situation as it is at present. This article need not be deleted if you can provide evidence that Dan Koshute is now famous, notable or significant.
On that note, please don't take offense at these proceedings and their outcome, whatever it may be. They are in no way intended to be a personal insult or slight on your ability as a contributor - I, myself, have had more than a few of my edits reverted and/or deleted entirely. Nearly every long-time contributor at Wikipedia has. Deletions, such as this, are a normal part of the Wikipedia process, and are never intended to as an insult. RandyWang (raves/rants) 08:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More google results might come up for The Rhodora as far as the many places they play. Though I tried it and it's also the name of a poem. If I merged Dan with pages on The Rhodora and/or other related bands or rising stars would that be any better? --AboveGroundSound 08:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a worthwhile suggestion, but I don't believe that would be an adequate solution. Eliminating various search terms from the above search leaves less than a thousand that don't explicitly refer to the Emerson poem, with an unknown number of those remaining relevant to Mr Koshute. Since The Rhodora's only relationship with the band is in name, they aren't close enough to warrant a page merge as suggested. Sorry. RandyWang (raves/rants) 08:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under what condition can I prove that Dan Koshute is currently notable? It's obvious to me based on the amount he's done. I really can't accept a place that would cut down something like this that has only potential for doing good. I won't be using wikipedia again. --AboveGroundSound 08:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The accepted way would be to provide outside sources that also assert his significance, such as a major newspaper or magazine. It's just the way we've done things for a long, long time - we are, of course, attempting to build the best encyclopedia we can. I'm sorry this has left you dissatisfied with Wikipedia, but we simply can't accept material indiscriminately. RandyWang (raves/rants) 09:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, read the criteria at WP:MUSIC, if it does not pass any of them then the article will be deleted. Don't take it personally, there's just a certain standard required in order for a band to have an article in Wikipedia. For example, take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shadows_of_Tomorrow. Shadows Of Tomorrow seem to be much more notable than Dan Koshute, but they will be deleted anyways because they fail WP:MUSIC. Joey Eppard is an example of an artist who just barely passes WP:MUSIC. Dionyseus 09:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable (yet). NawlinWiki 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. And if he ever becomes notable, I'll eat my own knee. -- GWO
  • Delete. Sorry, AboveGround. I took a long hard look at this one, as I'm very interested in music pages myself and many of my interests lie with some of the more obscure acts. However, I have to agree that this chap isn't notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I would therefore agree with all the others that this article should be deleted. However, it's not a badly written article and therefore I'd encourage you not to give up as an editor, as you could make some very valuable contributions in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaise Joshua (talk • contribs) 02:06, 15 July 2006
  • Delete' -- Any music/band/people article that starts "...2006 graduate of Mt. Lebanon High School..." has some major hurdles before being notable. Sorry, not yet. -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OmniCode

There are a lot of self-classification codes, like the Geek Code, out there. They're fun to make. However, this one doesn't appear to be widely used; a Google search for "LAEN+omnicode" - an identifier which should appear in most such codes - picks up only 40 unique hits, and a search for sites linking to it picks up mostly User Friendly diary pages. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn per nom. --Huon 09:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rob 10:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the creator of the OmniCode, and the test used in the AfD is flawed. It makes the assumption that only English speakers use this, while the community this started with at User Friendly is extremely international. Further, that Google search only finds those whose sole language is English.In addition, a Google search for "omnicode site:userfriendly.org" turns up 17,300 hits, showing the popularity within that community.Searching Google and including the last few version numbers ends up with well over 1000 hits. In any case, I won't argue further the AfD, but votes on this should not be based on the flawed logic of Zetawoof. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The creator has announced that work has begun on version 1.0, and tools to create and decode it, to be released before the end of 2006." We are all waiting breathlessly. Do hurry, K3wL haX0r! Delete --Xrblsnggt 02:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, I won't argue the deletion (look at my history...I didn't create this page, and I am a regular 'cleaner' of crap pages on Wikipedia), but there really is no need to be insulting. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. The nomination is only arguing lack of notability, and I disagree with that as per KickStart. The "categories" section is probably overkill, but there's enough in there for a good stub. And I expect that there really are people out there asking themselves "what's this OmniCode thing?". Andrew Rodland 05:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That OmniCode is multilingual and used primarily within a community of geeks doesn't mean the article isn't useful in Wikipedia. --Heavyphotons 06:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it used anywhere other than the User Friendly forums, though? (I couldn't find it in use anywhere else.) If not, then I don't see how it's notable to the world at large. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "OmniCode -site:userfriendly.org gadgeteer" (removing the userfriendly.org site entirely) shows 966 hits, and there is no requirement to list 'gadgeteer' in the code block. --Kickstart70-T-C 07:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew --Robert Wall 07:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew --Lord Lizard 07:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew --L1nX 08:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that the criteria being offered as basis for deletion are flawed. The users of the code are multilingual, so a restriction to English skews the search result, and a simple Google search shows approximately 24700 hits. Ayelmar 09:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The restriction to English is simply an attempt to pick up some sort of characteristic string that identifies uses of the code. If you can come up with a better alternative, please mention it. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As stated above, "OmniCode -site:userfriendly.org gadgeteer" shows nearly 1000 that aren't on the User Friendly site at all, which is a clear dispute of your claim that you couldn't find any. 'gadgeteer' is certainly something that is extremely unlikely to be included elsewhere in combination with 'omnicode'. --Kickstart70-T-C 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I too agree that the criteria being offered as basis for deletion are flawed.Viktorin
  • Keep Due to lack of correct arguments for deletion I have been reading through the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. To make it short: I can't find anything that explains why this article should be deleted. It is not bogus, it does not insult or violate personally or any laws, it is valuable Information (in the meaning of being correct facts and undisputable, and being searched by at least myself - after finding Omnicode and knowing GeekCode, I was curious to find other codes and read through them - I don't know if the wiki page existed at this time, I can't remember, but I wanted to know - and that's the reason why it should be there. Unfortunately the list at self-classification codes is rather empty. To get back to the deletion, I find reasons why the article should NOT be deleted but even expanded (key word: stub with potential, maybe subject branch (but not a minor one since the main article is inappropriate for detail information since it's more a category summary due to its nature). -- QCS as 84.185.210.203 10:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC) (sorry, don't have a login at en.wiki)[reply]
  • Keep I also agree that the criteria used to justify deletion are flawed. -- Illarkul 11:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a subject that's of interest to thousands of people, it's notable enough. The fact that it's only a limited community is irrelevant. Notability isn't a policy, and OmniCode has a fairly long history and a lot of fans. Wikipedia is not paper. Of course, I'm biased - I once started writing an OmniCode encoder before more important things intervened. Keep. ::Didactylos 14:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The criteria and especially the search terms for deletion are flawed. On the subject of notability (which may or may not matter), I'd state that it has a non-negligible international user base spreading beyond the User Friendly forum, which I deduce from e.g. traffic statistics for the decoder. --IByte 22:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- fails Wikipedia:Notability (memes) and crystal ball. The Geek Code article wasn't created until 2003. Get used all over the Internet, then c'mon back. -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article isn't forward-looking in any way, nor does it meet the "meme" criteria. I fail to understand how the date of the geekcode article is relevant. Fortunately, notability isn't a policy, and probably the meme proposal will fail to become policy also. We must argue this case on its merits, not resort to distortion. Far less notable subjects have become great articles, and wikipedia has room for them all. ::Didactylos 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Funny enough, if OmniCode falls under Internet meme, Wikipedia itself falls under Internet meme, too. "An Internet meme (also called an Internet phenomenon) is any kind of media that gains popularity through the Internet." - cite from the Wikipedia:Notability (memes) page. Wikipedia is nothing without the Internet, it would not have started, it would not be there, it just spreads via Internet. So, should we AfD Wikipedia then? No, of course not, since both are just *there* and the Wikipedia article is just about that. Both are more. Both are not an Internet meme. About the Chrystal Ball theory - where do you see any "future prediction"? That's just another empty word here. -- QCS as 84.185.242.18 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SkaterGames

Fails WP:WEB, extremely few Google hits, no Alexa rank. Prodded, prod removed without comment. Delete --Huon 08:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Perspectives of Zionism and Racism

An unreferenced WP:WEASEL POV fork of Zionism and Racism, Anti-Zionism, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mizuno

Also nominating Michael Bisco

Neither of these subjects meet WP:BIO Ste4k 09:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Brazelton

The article claims no assertion of notability byond his role in the murder trial of Scott Peterson. While he was certainly involved in a noteworthy event a quick check of google does not suggest that he gained renown or noteriety thereby and thus still falls short of WP:BIO Eluchil404 09:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yomangani 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanje Lanka Private Limited

Non-notable company, spam, advert. Rob 09:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Trish

Was tagged as a speedy, but claims to be skateboarding legend. A quick glance at Google results seems to show he's mentioned as featuring on one or more skating DVDs/Videos. I think a speedy is premature. Taking it here for further examination. No vote. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Form-less Document Systems

Spam & advert for nn company. I've already listed the companys advert page for delete. Rob 09:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Valich

Article was created by Theo Valich himself. [31] Fails WP:Bio and it's vanity. Dionyseus 09:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was a consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon by species

Wholly unencyclopedic trivia. We already have List of Pokémon by name (as well as several other lists at List of Pokémon, so we really don't need the "species" (which is never mentioned outside the info screen in the games) in list form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James K. Quinn

He is claimed to be the co-chairperson of some organization. Is that a valid claim of notability? - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane de Almeida

Resume of professor who does not obviously meet WP:PROF. Needs massive clean-up even if she is notable enough to be kept. Eluchil404 10:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was REDIRECT to Teapot Dome scandal Ryanjunk 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teapot dome affair

This article appears to be a poorly written POV fork of Teapot Dome scandal with nothing to be merged. Ste4k 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. A redirect is inappropriate here, as mechanist lacks the Thief (computer game series) context, and actually refers to other things. Mangojuicetalk 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanist

We're working on cleaning up the Thief articles, but a sect from the second game doesn't deserve it's own page. --BradBeattie 10:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thalir

Advert/spam for nn company. Rob 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems to be good information about the book, is pretty helpful in giving a brief idea on the contents.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.123.182.26 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-14 07:51:52 (UTC)
Yes, good info about where I can buy the book - point taken. But nonetheless this is a spam. It is asking you to decide to buy the book and telling you where from. It even lists how much the darn thing costs. If I look up 'Gone with the Wind', I can find a lovely article, but not that I can purchase it from Amazon for $9.95-. If the article contained detailed info about what the stories were about, then maybe. But as far as I can see, this is spam, pure and simple. Of course, the great thing about AfD is that I'm simply asking for a Delete. Everyone can have their say etc. Please vote for a Keep if you disagree that the article is spam. Thanks for your comments. Rob 12:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but it is still encouraging people to buy the book, i.e. spam. I would vote to keep if the article simply indicated who published the book, when it was published, a synopsis, the contents (which is currently fine), critical reviews maybe etc. Place an external link for the company who published. Unfortunately, IMHO, the last section 'why you should buy the book' / 'why you shouldnt' is a dead give away as to why this is still spam. Rob 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No Guru 16:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tdi group

Advert for nn company. Recent edits have removed much of the spam, but nevertheless I cannot see what makes this company notable. Article reads like an advert and nothing indicates any notability other than they sell stuff. They have also listed themselves under categories they do not appear to belong to, e.g. electronics manufacturers, at least based on the contents of the article. Rob 11:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:NEO applies and the keep'ers have not rebutted the argument that the article is "uninformative" - and probably could not be made so. Redirect to digitalis - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digitalism

Neologism that is only used in this context in this wikipedia article.--Peta 11:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep to cleanup and expand with WP:V. Just because there is more than one usage doesnt mean it cant be verified in a few of those usages. If nothing is done to the article in 4 days I'll change my vote to delete. Zos 21:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it means several things, and those several things ought to have articles, it should become a disambiguation page. The problem I see is that none of the neologistic meanings stand on their own merits as far as I can see. Smerdis of Tlön 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the top Google hits seem to be about the musician. I don't see any evidence this term is anything other than a loose blanket term for various scientific, philosophical, religious, et al ideas (possibly) coined by the author of the Wired article. This is reflected in the Wikipedia article, as it's just a listing of articles on such loosely related ideas. At this point, that puts it in the category of uninformative neologism. Tox 08:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Based on the diversity of things that show up in the search, my guess is most of them are unrelated to the Wired article, and are independent inventions of the word with different meanings. Fan-1967 03:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No Guru 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macforum

Non-notable internet forum (43 registered users at the time of nomination). Was prodded as such and deprodded anonymously without comment. ~ Matticus78 11:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Merging can be proposed separately and debated on talk pages in this case. Mangojuicetalk 03:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1982 in India

The page is practically empty and has been since its incarnation in 2004. If deleted, nothing is lost, really, but I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if someone expands it. Punkmorten 11:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not sure I have a problem with this type of article. It seems to be very useful, and allows more detail than just a vast timeline. AdamBiswanger1 14:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article in its present state is very useful..? (Note that the AFD is not about the type of article) Punkmorten 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I think that to delete it would only be counterproductive, especially with an article that has both an enormous potential for growth and an enormous number of potential contributors. It's not 1982 in Northwestern Togo. I'm not a fan of keeping short articles such as this, but when an article will inevitably grow, and the usefulness is so overwhelming, I have to vote keep. AdamBiswanger1 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I added this project to the "to do" list for Wikiproject History of India AdamBiswanger1 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as reposted content.--Andeh 12:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere Girl

This article is a repost. Anonymous ips are removing the speedy deletion tag. Here's the link to the second nomination: [32]Dionyseus 10:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saval Foods

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RomleyOmley.tk

Delete - Advertisement. Article was deprodded by author, so bringing it to AFD. Brian G 12:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamestotal.com

Delete Non-notable website that fails WP:WEB. No reliable sources so unverifiable. Prod was rmoved without comment. Gwernol 12:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

Please hold any lengthy discussions on the talk page, so that the AfD will not become too cluttered. Likewise, please check this AfD's talk page for more discussion. --Philosophus T 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD submitted by Byrgenwulf with comment "Added an article, will discuss it right away." This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. See also the article's Talk page. Tevildo 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This theory is not a generally recognised notable scientific theory. It doesn't meet Wikipedia policy for notability for scientific theories, not having been published in a proper scientific journal.
Moreover, the way it is written is almost completely unintelligible, with too much jargon that is unique to the theory the article is meant to explain.
See the article's talk page for the concerns that have been raised and the manner in which they have been handled. Edits attempting to "fix" it are simply reverted by ardent proponents of the theory.
So far as I am aware, this is not the first time either that this article has come up for deletion. However, I do believe that the proponents should be given the opportunity to respond. So over to the community!
  • Update I was right, in fact this article was deleted before, for similar reasons, and was re-introduced with a hyphen in the name so as to bypass Wikipedia policy. See this record of the process. What happens now? Is this spam, since nothing has changed materially since the last deletion?--Byrgenwulf 14:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I belive the article becomes a candidate for Speedy Deltion. Best to ask an admin. Jefffire 14:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I find one of those? Byrgenwulf 14:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just do I suppose... I'll ask one on your behalf.
Since there isn't anyone who remember the original, we can't be sure it is a direct recreation under the Speedy Deletion criterion. However, it is likey that this will count against it in the current AfD. Doesn't seem worth the effort basicaly as the article will probably get deleted anyway. Jefffire 14:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The deleted article was insufficiently referenced and contained only a few paragraphs, none of which were reproduced in the new article. Since the articles were not "substantially identical", the recreation of deleted material criterion does not apply. The current title includes a hyphen because the name of the theory includes a hyphen; see The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory. The deleted title was incorrect. Tim Smith 16:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm not sure what the etiquette/norm is here but obviously my own view should be obvious: Delete --Byrgenwulf 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally advisable to make it explicit in an AfD that's likely to contain a lot of text, as this one already does. :) Tevildo 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NBAnyone reading slurs on my personal character here is asked to please read the discussion on the talk page, which should help put things in a bit more perspective.--Byrgenwulf 11:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My original approach was to try to edit the article. However, Asmodeus, DrL and others simply reverted absolutely every attempt to try to make it more legible and balanced, even referenced concerns, as being "vandalism". As they made the article completely uneditable, and even removed tags saying that there was a dispute about quality/neutrality/factual accuracy (when it was empirically obvious there was a dispute like that), this seemed the next logical move: that article is being used as a soapbox. In my sandbox is an alternative, more balanced article following the usual layout for these "disputed theories": if you have suggestions, do add them to my talk page. --Byrgenwulf 10:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bergenwulf, there are a lot of people interested in the CTMU. Take false and unsubstantiated accusations (e.g., "socks") to the discussion page (or, more appropriately, to the trash). Your attempts to "edit" the article began with the insertion of links to "pseudoscience" and "crank" and escalated to attempts to equate the CTMU with "Creationism". When the other editors wanted you to slow down and discuss changes, you balked (after all that might have taken hours as opposed to seconds) and threatened to call in the moderators. When the moderators didn't respond to your editing emergency quickly enough and you were thwarted in your attempts to insert your anti-Creationist platform (into an article that has nothing to do with Creationism), you threatened to nominate the page for deletion. Interestingly, you started out by saying the article belonged in Wikipedia, just needed a few changes (according to you). So clearly you have used this Wikipedia procedure in a totally coercive manner and because you were unsuccessful with regard to both the speed and content of your anticipated wholesale changes, we now have this page and this debate. DrL 11:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who wishes to see the sordid details of this petty little saga is more than welcome to review the history, and the talk pages, of the CTMU, and count how many times I mentioned "creationism" (none). I did go in heavy-handed at first, but I rapidly toned it down. But, as usual, we aren't debating the theory, we are debating the article. My major complaint is that "disputed" tags were just removed, on the grounds that they were "vandalism", and not an empirically true description of a state of affairs. This is soapboxing, and an attempt to take out the fly swatter to squelch critics (a metaphor Langan once used about those who disagree with the CTMU). Why not address the article itself, DrL, instead of me? Do you deny that it is in need of revision? Moreover, while at first I thought the article did merit inclusion, my subsequent reading of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, etc., as well as a consideration of the popular press attention (focusing on Langan, not his "theory") has convinced me otherwise.BTW: should this and DrL's comment not be moved to the talk page as well? I'll leave that to someone more experience than I.--Byrgenwulf 11:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING REGARDING THE FOLLOWING TABLE

The following table has been identified as a confused or dishonest attempt to mislead the Wikipedia community. The problems with it are as follows:

1. Langan is not "discussing" the CTMU in Wikipedia. Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, and is notable in his own right. It is those who wish to dispute the CTMU, or declare it non-notable, who must show their credentials and prove their authority.

2. Again, Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, not merely the owner of a website which talks about the CTMU or which contains archived materials regarding it. This is a very important distinction which the table fails to reflect.

3. Langan did not write the Wikipedia article on the CTMU. Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, the notable, widely-publicized theory ABOUT which the article was written.

In short, the table below is irrelevant or worse, misrepresenting the situation at hand and encouraging the misapplication of Wikipedia guidelines.

Maybe that's why nobody signed off on it. Asmodeus 23:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -->

CTMU Article Wikipedia guidance
Langan is of limited means and largely self-taught. Beware false authority
Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree.
Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions.
(Langan's) first paper on the theory, "The Resolution of Newcomb's Paradox", appeared in the December 1989–January 1990 issue of Noesis, the journal of the Noetic Society (now the Mega Society)"
(Langan was editor of the Noetic Society when the cited paper was published in Noesis [33].)

Cites Langan's self-published works on his website. 		The first question to ask yourself is,
"What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?"

Anyone can post anything on the web.
Cites Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID)

Cites the Christopher Langan biography at ISCID.
ISCID and PCID, parts of the same oganization, of which [Langan is a "fellow", have an obvious agenda. 		Also ask yourself:
Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?

Check multiple sources. Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.130.228 (talk • contribs)

  • Still Neutral. As philosophy, it's just warmed-over Neoplatonism that ignores the past 2000 years of metaphysical thought, but our duty as editors is not to assess it as philosophy, but as an encyclopaedia article. It _does_ assert the notability of the subject adequately, although more than one link to the claimed plethora of media articles and interviews would help. It's rather too POV at the moment, but deletion is not a solution to that problem - see Orcadian for a similar example. The article needs a lot of work by a neutral editor, but I think it's entitled to stay. Tevildo 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response If you actually think that the CTMU is "nothing but warmed over Neoplatonism", Tevildo, then you obviously have a few holes in your knowledge of philosophy. Similarly, if you think that the CTMU ignores 2000 years of progress in metaphysics, then you should have concentrated a bit more when reading Langan's paper(s). As you probably know, you couldn't even begin to coherently justify either of these assertions. By making this kind of sweeping, unwarranted statement here and now, you're merely encouraging others to vote down an article whose only crime is that it takes a bit of honest effort to understand. By the way, the disputed article contained plenty of links confirming notability and verifiability; they've simply been disputed and tampered with by those who don't appreciate their content. ABC News, Popular Science...come on, give us a break. Either those are reputable sources, or Wikipedia is really just an appendage of academia which limits its sources to a small set of journals under direct academic control. I don't think that's the case, and if you reflect on it for a moment, I think you'll have to agree with me. (If I'm wrong, please quote the Wikipedia policy statement that effects this limitation - I've looked hard and can't find it.) Asmodeus 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will concede that no student of philosophy can put together an argument against the ad lapidem, so will decline your implied offer. This AfD is too long anyway. I would still urge, however, everyone who reads it to take into account all the opinions expressed, and make their judgement accordingly. Tevildo 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I think one of the biggest problems with CTMU is that the bombastic and needlessly sesquipedalian language in which it's worded does lend credence to the theory. However, it seems most of the criticism of the theory arises from this single complaint, which says nothing of the theory's validity. Regardless, it has garnered considerable media attention and is certainly noteworthy in that respect. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article provides an overview of the theory which is free of the needlessly sesquipedalian language, and in that respect I also find the article useful. Those who wish to criticize the theory should create a "Criticism" section, not simply request to delete the article. Tarcieri 07:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as gibberish. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and the few fragments that seemed coherent enough to read and not statements singing the praise of the inventor were incorrect ("all meaningful theories conform to 2-valued logic" overlooks fuzzy logic, "the axioms and theorems of 2-valued logic are tautological" overlooks Gödel's incompleteness theorems if I understand correctly). If the popular press links are valid, they also should be linked from the relevant press sites in any rewrite, not the invetor's mirror. --Christopher Thomas 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable sophistical gibberish. Badly written to boot. Jefffire 15:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Do Not Delete - The Wikipedia article entitled "Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU) is subject to ongoing vandalism, largely by one highly dedicated person (and now by others).
Christopher Langan and his theory, the CTMU, have been the recipients of extensive media coverage. Sources include ABC News, Esquire Magazine, Popular Science, and other journalistic periodicals and television documentaries which seriously investigate and employ fact-checkers regarding the material they cover. Both Langan and the CTMU were featured in virtually every instance. The CTMU is a complex, and in my opinion valid, theory. While some laymen complain that they cannot understand the CTMU, there is no reason to believe that this does not owe at least in part to their own negative attitudes and low level of expertise in its subject matter (logic and metaphysics, with broad implications regarding science in general). While there is no expert consensus on the CTMU, neither has it been found wanting. The theory has been out there for a number of years and is therefore eligible for peer review; if this has thus far been inadequate, that is certainly not the fault of the theory or its author, and does not detract from the theory itself.
The editor calling himself "Byrgenwulf" appears to be negatively obsessed with Christopher Langan and the CTMU. What began as an offhand attempt to tar the CTMU and its author with misdirected, unverifiable and decidedly non-neutral epithets like "pseudoscience" and "crank" has now seemingly escalated into a full-time vendetta, to the extent that one wonders where Byrgenwulf finds the time to eat and sleep. He appears to have no understanding of Wikipedia policy; even when various aspects of this policy are patiently explained to him, he attempts to restore past edits, or rewordings thereof, which have already been found in violation.
Although Byrgenwulf has repeatedly claimed that he could effortlessly rip the CTMU to shreds were he so-inclined, he has been caught red-handed in a number of critical errors regarding that theory; and although he claims to have thoroughly read Langan's paper in PCID, he has boldly denied that it contains things which it can be plainly seen to contain (sometimes after falsely stating that he has carefully searched for them). Unfortunately, he appears immune to the sort of embarrassment that anyone else would feel under similar circumstances, merely redoubling his destructive efforts in retaliation. In short, he seems to have no idea what the CTMU is, what it does, how it does it, or for that matter why it doesn't do it (if that is indeed the case), and perhaps for these very reasons, appears hell-bent on sabotaging its Wikipedia entry.
As I understand it, Wikipedia does not consider this to be acceptable behavior for its contributors. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do know that I have better things to do than ride this article 24/7 to keep Byrgenwulf from corrupting it, and to reverse the falsehoods, innuendos, and accusations he nevertheless manages to plant in it against Wikipedia policy. It seems to me that if the Wikipedia moderators were to read this discussion and explore the history of edits, they would quickly verify the truth of everything I've just written, and deal with Byrgenwulf and his accomplices as they deserve. But meanwhile, in apparent denial of this very possibility, Byrgenwulf persists.
Needless to say, the personal misgivings and bad feelings of Byrgenwulf et al are not enough to justify repetitive attacks against an accurate, legitimate, and informative Wikipedia entry. And now, to make matters worse, after Byrgenwulf has tallied a string of edits the likes of which Wikipedia has seldom seen, we have an additional flurry of negative edits, dispute tags, and so on, claiming that, for example, ABC News - which repeatedly ran a 20-minute segment on Langan and his theory - is an "unverifiable source". Such protestations are utterly ridiculous. It seems that a tiny handful of critics (or sockpuppets, or fellow travelers trying to strike a blow for their pet philosophy, or whomever) have taken it upon themselves to change history, declare all of Langan's media coverage one big "unreliable source", pretend that the CTMU was not mentioned in those articles and television segments, and so on ad nauseam.
This article was carefully reviewed for verifiability and NPOV well prior to Byrgenwulf's initial incursion. It was one of the best sources for a lucid overall introduction to a unique and arguably very promising theory which has nothing whatsoever to do with Creationism or "Intelligent Design Creationism" but merely had the misfortune to be published in an ID-sympathetic journal. In fact, as its author states, the theory was intended to give both sides of the evolution debate a common framework for ultimate reconciliation, something which is very badly, and very obviously, needed by all concerned.
I therefore vote for NON-deletion, and request that the moderators do something about the situation ... preferably sooner rather than later. DrL 15:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DrL has only edited the CTMU article, its talk page, this AfD, the article on the CTMU's inventor and a couple pages directly related to him. Anville 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I did not edit the CTMU page prior to Byrgenwulf's initial vandalism. DrL 11:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - DO NOT DELETE The CTMU is a valuable intellectual contribution which has been erroneously, and in my opinion foolishly, targeted for attack on philosophical and opinionative grounds. It's not easy to understand without the proper background, but that means absolutely nothing, since the same can be said of many of the other legitimate theories covered in Wikipedia. For anyone who knows the relevant technical fields, it displays adequate conceptual integrity - probably far more than the vast majority of what one encounters in the paradox-ridden field of analytic philosophy and the modern philosophy of science - and is unquestionably unique in both form and application. On the other hand, if you can't understand it, then why not do everybody a favor and leave it up for those who can? [By the way, I think it's important that voters know that this vote has not been presented by a "professional philosopher of physics", as Byrgenwulf claims to be on the discussion page. On searching the web, I got a couple of hits on "byrgenwulf". One of them leads to a registered contributor on an anti-ID website. In his personal bio, this person describes himself as a 22-year-old college student from South Africa. Now, while I grant that this may not be the Byrgenwulf that is currently wreaking havoc with the CTMU entry, it is highly probable on orthographic grounds alone (not to mention that he lists "the philosophy of physics" among his interests). This tells me that Byrgenwulf is probably not a professional philosopher of physics, as he claims to be, but just another college kid, perhaps a first-year grad student, drunk on the seemingly boundless knowledge that he has greedily guzzled from the brimming well of academe, no doubt including an introductory course on modern philosophy which devoted almost an entire class period to Godel, whose writings Byrgenwulf has egregiously misapplied to the CTMU (see discussion page), thus displaying that he understands precisely nothing about it. Personally, I find this perfectly consistent with his puerile behavior and the kindergarten level of his criticism. So much for the motivation behind this up/down vote.] Asmodeus 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please refrain from personal attacks - WP:NPA refers. Whatever Byrgenwulf's professional qualifications may be, his views appear to be shared by most of the other contributors to this AfD to date. Tevildo 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:Asmodeus has likewise only edited the CTMU article and articles relating to its inventor and his high IQ society.--Byrgenwulf 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hand-wavy claptrap of the first order. -- GWO
  • Keep - Do Not Delete - Its controversial nature is already noted in the article itself, and the text of the article reinforces this notice through the use of Langan's name throughout it. I don't know why the author's carefulness with regard to highlighting the controversial status of the CTMU through the body of the article itself should be held up as a strike against both it and him. What has not been noted in the argument over this article is whether or not Progress In Information, Complexity And Design is a peer reviewed journal, regardless of what institute publishes it. If McDonald's, for whatever reason, began publishing a peer-reviewed journal of mathematics, its mathematical contents would still be peer-reviewed. I don't know why complaints which amount to a request for recategorization have to take the form of a motion for deletion. As far as the jargon issue is concerned, the external links should supply the needed information. I would, however, advise that the link to the "20/20" interview be removed, as its text is somewhat inconsistent with the content of the CTMU itself. --Danielmryan 18:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote Alan Sokal, "As a physicist, I am not impressed." Delete as soapbox-standing, probable OR and vanity. Anville 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly the piece is openly a hypothesis and intelligent people can read and make up their own mind about its relevance or cogency. Enough people find it cogent and relevant enough to warrant its insertion. I vote not to delete it and to let time be the ultimate vote, i.e. the amount of attention it actually gets from serious people about the themes presented in his work.joywords --Joywords 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete NN pseudoscientific theory, of little use to the reader of an encyclopedia. The appropriate place for this proposal and resulting discourse is in the scientific literature or the pseudoscientific literature as the case may be. The press coverage alone does not make it ntoable.--Nick Y. 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The proposed notability criterion for non-mainstream theories requires reference in only one mainstream publication, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". The CTMU easily passes, having appeared in Popular Science [34] (circulation of 1.45 million subscribers; readership of more than 7 million), Newsday (circulation in the hundreds of thousands), The Times (hundreds of thousands of copies sold daily), on 20/20 [35] (averages millions of viewers per week), and elsewhere. It is this level of high-profile exposure which makes the CTMU notable, and which makes an encyclopedia article of use to the many readers introduced to the theory through these sources. Tim Smith 02:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks verifiability. There are only two types of "references" in this article: (1) those pointing to Langan-owned (megafoundation, CTMU) sites, Langan-edited/archived (Noesis) sites, or Langan-is-a-"fellow"-of-an-organization-who,-like-Langan,-has-a-creationist-agenda (ISCID/PCID) sites; and (2) pop-culture periodicals that focus on a weight lifter with a big brain, and not his CTMU "theory." I don't believe Wikipedia policy counts The Sunday Telegraph, 20/20, Muscle & Fitness, or even Popular Science as proper fora for cosmologist peer reviews. --Blaine Steinert 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To present the CTMU as correct, we would indeed need references of other than these two types. The question at hand, though, is not whether we are to assert the theory, but whether we are to describe it. To verifiably and justifiably describe the CTMU here, we need references to (1) its claims, and (2) its notability. The references in the article satisfy these requirements: Langan's writings provide his claims, and the mainstream media coverage establishes notability. (Popular Science focuses here specifically on the CTMU, and other articles describe both Langan and his theory.) Tim Smith 22:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hogwash.
      Mr. Smith, you stated, "The question at hand... is ... whether we are to describe it." Only if it is something notable, which apparently it is not (see big, red letters below). Wikipedia is clear that it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. I might describe my grandmother's theory of Quasars, and she might have even been featured in Bluehair & Fitness Magazine, but that hardly makes her ideas Wiki-worthy.
    • THE POPSCI ARTICLE SEEMS TO BE A FORGERY
      Mr. Smith, you (and the CTMU article) seem to rely heavily on the PopSci article "Wise Guy," by John R. Quain. But something fishy is going on here: The "archived" PopSci piece - ostensibly the best Langan-independent citation (read: the only reference to an outside "scientific" periodical) - is quite different from the actual, archived article. As you know, archived web pages from the Wayback Machine have been deemed as admissible in court, so I tend to think the Wayback Machine's archived version of the PopSci piece is what PopSci actually printed, and the megafoudnation-version of this PopSci piece has been manipulated.
      Briefly, the real "Wise Guy" article makes no mention of "Robert Seitz, a physicist and former NASA executive," who "admits that he 'doesn't fully understand Langan's theory,'" and who goes on to say Langan is "'perhaps the smartest individual'" he's ever met. Indeed, the real "Wise Guy" article does not even refer to the CTMU. It does, interestingly, recount Langan's interest in The_chicken_or_the_egg dilemma. Pretty interesting, eh, Asmodeus? --Blaine Steinert 18:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: THERE ARE TWO POPSCI ARTICLES THAT APPEARED IN THE SAME ISSUE - ONE IS AN ARTICLE, THE OTHER IS AN INTERVIEW - NEITHER ARE FORGERIES Please be more careful. DrL 18:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Seitz is on the board of Langan's "high IQ society". So much for NPOV, anyway. Byrgenwulf 17:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As DrL says, the Popular Science coverage consisted of two parts, both archived by the Wayback Machine [36][37], both stored on megafoundation.org [38][39], and both linked from ctmu.org. One part interviews Langan; the other part focuses specifically on his theory. As I documented below, other sources also give prominent, attention-getting placement to the theory. Indeed, the CTMU easily meets the proposed notability guideline for non-mainstream theories, which requires only that they be referenced in a mainstream publication, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". Again, the question is not whether the theory is sufficiently correct to be asserted, but whether it is sufficiently notable to be described, factually and neutrally. With circulations in the hundreds of thousands or millions, the mainstream media in which the CTMU has appeared establish that notability. Tim Smith 19:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DEFINITELY DELETE. Whether it's been mentioned in PopSci or not is irrevelant to the notion of peer review. Popular Science is not a journal of peer review. It's a magazine geared towards popularity. This "theory"'s lack of credibility is underscored by the fact the only "science journal" this person/socks has/have in defense of the "theory"'s notability is Popular Science! Even the Wikipedia entry of Popular Science informs us that the magazine is geared "for the general reader on science and technology subjects." Luis Hamburgh 09:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To present the theory as correct, we would indeed need peer-reviewed sources. But again, the question is not whether we are to assert the theory, but whether we are to describe it, and not whether the theory is correct, but whether it is notable. Popularity does not establish correctness, but it does establish notability, and the CTMU's appearances in the popular media are numerous, with coverage from Popular Science [40], 20/20 [41], The Times, Newsday, Esquire, and more. Tim Smith 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The CTMU has received extensive coverage in the mainstream media, including Popular Science [42], 20/20 [43], The Times, Newsday, Esquire, and even Muscle & Fitness! Remember, the question here is not whether the theory is correct—that's not for Wikipedia to decide—but whether it is notable. The relevant notability criterion is that "non-mainstream theories should be referenced in at least one major mainstream publication", explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". Since the CTMU has been referenced in many such publications, it is notable and deserves an article: not to assert its claims as truth, but to describe them accurately and neutrally. Tim Smith 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on a few issues here. Claiming that the CTMU is philosophy and not science is an attempt to hedge the issue. It is not the case that "science" has standards while "philosophy" is a wishy-washy field where anything goes. The CTMU claims to be a theory of everything (a physical concept), and claims to offer a new interpretation of quantum mechanics, and has a notion of "conspansion" which contradicts much of what the mainstream scientific and philosophic community acknowledges relativity to be. Moreover, all the popular press articles are about Langan, the originator of the concept, not the CTMU itself. They may mention the theory, but they are not about it. As such, these articles and references can be put on Langan's bio page. And besides, the nomination has nothing to do with whether the CTMU is philosophy, sophistry, science or pseudoscience. It is about the article as it appears here, and whether or not it is an encyclopaedic article.--Byrgenwulf 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Comment Caveat emptor. Byrgenwulf needs to tell the truth for a change - he attacked the article, and proposed this vote, because he's an anti-ID fanatic who baselessly disputes the content and quality of the CTMU, a theory which he doesn't even begin to understand. There's a record of this on the discussion page, where Byrgenwulf fraudulently intimated that he is a professional philosopher of physics and then proceeded to make elementary errors that no expert in that field could possibly make, and which have now been seriously compounded. In fact, the article IS encyclopedic, or at least was before Byrgenwulf took it upon himself to monkey it up. Indeed, it had been carefully reworded to comply with NPOV and was provided with all of the verifiable source material it needed. All that Byrgenwulf is doing here is attempting to win the game, and get rid of the article, by propagating pathetic misconceptions about science and philosophy that a freshman in English Lit wouldn't lay claim to, thereby polluting the air and muddying the waters as is evidently his habit. (Anyone who thinks that Byrgenwulf knows the first thing about philosophy or science, let alone Wikipedia policy, need merely take a stroll up this page to be disabused.) As far as Byrgenwulf's specific comments on the CTMU, conspansion, and theories of eveything are concerned, forget about them - he has repeatedly been shown not to understand the first thing about the CTMU or anything related to it. Asmodeus 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "relevant policy" noted here is not policy - it is a proposed guideline, which is not finished and does not yet have the support of Wikipedia editors. The pseudotheory is also not referenced in any serious and reputable scientific journal, by the way. --Philosophus T 08:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having references doesn't affect the other reasons to delete. Having "references" is standard procedure for pseudoscience that is trying to confuse people by blurring the lines. Not that being pseudoscience is necessarily a reason to delete either.--Nick Y. 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response There aren't any "other reasons" to delete. The CTMU isn't science; it's philosophy. Therefore, it can't be coherently labeled as "pseudoscience". It's really just that simple. Furthermore, nobody here is in a position to enforce any particular set of "lines" just because he personally fears that those lines, wherever and whatever they are, may become "blurred". Things can't always remain simple just because somebody wants them to be, particularly with regard to matters of high inherent complexity. Asmodeus 01:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, someone please remove all of these comments and responses to this nom's talk page. I can barely make out what all the fuss is about. And to let others who wish this article kept, please replace your "do not delete" with Keep. This makes it clearer for others. Zos 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete good god what a lot of blather. This is totally meaningless nonsense. Opabinia regalis 00:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsensical and nonnotable mixture of pseudophysics and pseudophilosophy. My main way of deciding notability on articles on non-completely-insane pseudotheory (this excludes Time Cube, which is treated as notable nonsense) is to see whether the references allow one to create an article that satisfies NOR and NPOV at the same time. If the pseudoscientific theory does not have reputable refutations or notable critics when it obviously should, it does not deserve an article. Yoshiaki Omura is notable because he has notable and reputable critics, for example. This does not. The main claim to notability seems to be popular articles articles about the person rather than the pseudotheory. We should delete this, and redirect to the person. --Philosophus T 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wikipedia article describing the CTMU has proved useful to me as a neutral source of information since the time it was originally contributed. --Convolution 06:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can tell those who want to delete the article want to because of their views on the CTMU itself and not whether it is sufficiently notable. The Popular Science article cited appears to be on the CTMU and not on Langan himself. It even includes a quote by a physicist and former NASA executive who (without passing judgement on its veracity) considers the theory worthy of "serious and open-minded review". While I have reservations on a theory presented in such a jargonized manner, many accepted theories have been presented in that fashion, too, unless or until someone good at explaining the theory comes along (a la Schwinger versus Feynman on QED). The CTMU may turn out to be total garbage, but it has received sufficient press and is a significant part of a high-IQ subculture surrounding Langan. Tox 07:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is titled "Wise Guy"! It is a less-than-two-page article mainly about the person and his theory. It is not an article about the theory, such as one might see in a serious journal, like one of the Physical Reviews. This is nothing like QED: it hasn't shown up anywhere in the legitimate scientific community, or any any reputable journal. It only has a handful of popular articles that, if they are not mostly about the person, are initially started because of the novelty of the person's IQ. The opinion of an ex-NASA "executive" who appears to be involved with the person somehow ("the smartest guy I ever met") doesn't really make the subject notable. The fact that the "executive" apparently doesn't merit his own Wikipedia article and doesn't show up in the first few pages of Google results makes me question the word usage of Popular Science writers, and makes the support even less important. --Philosophus T 08:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well aware of the nature of the article. The purpose of citing it has nothing to do with bolstering the veracity of the theory. It is only cited to bolster the notoriety of the theory: namely people are likely to encounter it and seek out more information on what it is about. That is the usefulness of Wikipedia: we can encounter obscure topics we know nothing about and find out about them in Wikipedia, something we could not do with 20th century paper encyclopedias.
Please do not take my QED analogy out of context. I am not saying that the CTMU is remotely similar to QED in its acceptance or its veracity. I am only bringing up QED as an example of a correct theory deliberately described by one arrogant prick in the most esoteric manner possible and by another genius who sought the most intuitive and easily understood version he could find.
I am not a proponent of the CTMU. I find its excessive jargonization extremely irritating and because of that I have not bothered to delve into it much, even though I have been aware of it for years (because it is well-known enough that people looking into ToEs, who don't limit themselves merely to academia, eventually encounter it). In fact I am quite leary of it. It is only my steadfast commitment to open-mindedness that does not allow me to reject it until I get around to serious analysis of it. Which is precisely why I'd like to see a Wikipedia article (not written by Langan) on the CTMU: so I have a decent overview of the theory to look at. Anyone else wanting to know about it would find such an article useful, too. So, if the article is flawed, then fix it, don't delete it. This debate is about the philosophy of Wikipedia, not the philosophy of the CTMU. —Tox 07:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mainstream media attention that CTMU has garnered alone should justify for keeping it. I don't know why the people suggesting it be deleted say it should be treated with the rigors of a scientific theory. It's a philosophical construct, and one which has been published in Popular Science and other magazines. There's plenty of crank theories in Wikipedia, like Terrence McKenna's Novelty Theory, which wouldn't be considered for deletion simply because they've had such an impact on popular culture. I personally believe Langan is onto something huge with CTMU. Others may not... so, how about editing the article, chaps? That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Joegoodbud 09:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The mainstream media attention has been directed at Mr Langan himself (mainly due to the incongruity between his IQ-test scores and his line of work), not to his theory. I agree that he, as a person, deserves a Wikipedia article, but not that his theory is notable in its own right. The existing description of the theory at Christopher Michael Langan might be capable of slight expansion (emphasis on _slight_), but I don't believe it deserves its own article, especially when any attempts to edit that article are repeatedly over-ruled by certain individual(s) who seem bent on preventing it reaching an unbiased state. If the version of the article on Byrgenwulf's user page could be safely used, then, although I would still regard the article as superfluous, I would have no objection to its retention. However, I don't believe that we can ensure its integrity. Tevildo 11:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. While I appreciate your mediating tone, Telvido, I'd like to emphasize a couple of things. First, I've been watching the CTMU article since it first appeared and have seen it go back and forth and find its way to a reasonable middle before Bergenwulf appeared. I don't believe I had ever bothered to make an edit prior to that.
Byrgenwulf's first edits were "admittedly over the top" (his words) and made for a poor entrance, leading other editors to believe his motives were political and less than sincere. I did delete many of his edits but mainly because he was pushing them through too quickly. I repeatedly asked him to slow down and discuss edits on the Talk page first and indeed thought we were negotiating changes to the Controversy section, but I guess we weren't moving quickly enough (it was taking hours as opposed to seconds). He is not the only editor on Wikipedia and should know enough about Wikipedia etiquette to negotiate changes more slowly and reasonably with the other editors and readers. He only came upon the page, and Langan's work, a few days ago. Shouldn't one spend a little time absorbing the material before editing any article on Wikipedia?
What you are suggesting (that the article be retained but it be Byrgenwulf's edit) is coercive, whether or not you mean it that way. While some clean-up may be in order there was not much wrong with the article as it stood when Byrgenwulf came on the scene (or, indeed, when Tim Smith originally posted it). Further, Byrgenwulf's version is misleading on many points. For example:
It is categorized under "pseudophysics" and "pseudoscience". This makes about as much sense as categorizing a Brahms concerto as pseudoscience because it doesn’t follow the "scientific method". The CTMU is a logical model that is not claiming to be empirical science. Such categorization is designed to lower the perceived credibility of the work.
"The CTMU has close ties to the Intelligent Design movement." Here, "close ties" implies political involvement and I see no evidence of that. What I see is an openness on the part of ISCID toward Langan's ideas and a response to that from Langan by submitting his material for publication. After all, he may perceive himself cut off from mainstream academic venues due to his lack of degrees and see ISCID and PCID as an opportunity for at least some level of peer-review. If you read his chapter in Uncommon Dissent, he clearly criticizes aspects of both ID and strict neoDarwinism (mostly in terms of limits of interpretation).
"While not being of quite the same order as the time-cube, the CTMU can nonetheless be categorised as pseudoscience." By even putting a concept in the same sentence as "time-cube", you are eroding credibility. Again, the CTMU is erroneously categorized as pseudoscience.
"This is an intelligent design journal, the content and nature of which has been the subject of a large amount of criticism by mainstream scientists, including in US courts. This is because these scientists feel that the journal lacks impartiality and rigour in its editorial policies[1]. As such, any paper published in this journal cannot be regarded as being part of established scientific thought.[2]."
The fact that PCID is an ID journal is fair enough for inclusion but this rant against intelligent design journals should be contained in the article on PCID or ISCID, not here! This proposed text links to two footnotes featuring anti-Creationism material. What on Earth is that doing here? The CTMU has nothing to do with "Creationism". In fact, I would expect that Creationists might not care for the CTMU at all. I feel that Byrgenwulf's motives are political. His dogged insistence on the inclusion of these two articles is odd and it almost seems as if he has been given this material along with instructions to push it whenever he has the opportunity.
These are some of the most glaring errors and the points I was hoping to be able to negotiate with Bergenwulf. It would be nice if they could be fixed, but I expect that there is an underlying political agenda here so I don't hold out much hope. DrL
Railing against a single editor will no change the result of an AfD. I suggest that you clearly and concisely list your points, then wait. Jefffire 13:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jefffire, I am not railing against anyone. I was responding to Telvido's suggestion that the page be retained but using Bygenwulf's edit. My points outlined factual errors and NPOV conflicts in that edit. I am making every effort to respond to the content and primary issues and not the personalities here. DrL 12:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Who cares how many people wrote it, or whether it is "in contact with academic reserach"? If you want to read about things that are "in contact with academic reserach", you should subscribe to academic journals. Wikipedia is not an appendage of academia, and the CTMU nowhere relies on "contact with academic reserach" to make its points. Please, let's keep our eyes on the ball here. Asmodeus 15:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia is also not an indescriminate store of knowledge. The charge is that the subject is non-notable, as per the notability policy. Jefffire 15:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response But notability has already clearly been satisfied in the form of verifiable sources like ABC News and Popular Science. This is nothing but a flimsy charade undertaken by you and one or two others to remove the article because you don't like its subject matter, on the grounds that it has not been published in academic journals. You seem to think that Wikipedia is an appendage of academia, and you're simply mistaken. Don't muddy the water.
Response This contains a terminological error. The CTMU never claimed to be "science"; therefore, it cannot be coherently labeled as "pseudoscience" (this issue is discussed in more detail on this page and in the discussion area). By its nature, it is philosophical. Ample proof of its notability has been duly provided. Asmodeus 16:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're in error, Asmodeus. Here's how Langan describe his "theory" in |this essay:

A cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s Participatory Universe and the Stephen Hawking-James Hartle "imaginary time" theory of cosmology proposed in Hawking’s phenomenal book A Brief History of Time, the CTMU resolves many of the most intractable paradoxes known to physical science while explaining recent data which indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

. This seems to indicate that it is cosmology: philosophy doesn't deal in expanding universes or "conspansion", really. And, a bit of a slip up here, the Hawking-Hartle model wasn't "proposed" in Hawking's pop science book, but in Phys. Rev. D28, 2960 (1983). Byrgenwulf 18:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response You know, I hate to seem impatient. Really I do. But if you don't stop it with these howlers of yours, I may end up climbing the walls of my office. Let me spell this out for you. The only kind of theory capable of "resolving an intractable paradox of physical science" is a theory formulated on a level above that of the paradox itself; thus, using the theory, one can define a function which resolves the paradox by mapping its (otherwise conflicting) elements consistently into observables. Say that one of your college professors were to ask you whether this new theory is "scientific" in the same sense as the scientific theory which generated the paradox. You just answered this question "yes!" But unfortunately for your grade point, the answer is "no". By definition, the paradox has been generated BY a theory of science; in effect, one train of scientific reasoning is slamming into another within a single theory (or conjuctive set of theories), with no chance to avoid the collision. Hence, one needs a metalanguage of that scientific theory (or set of theories) to resolve it...a higher language in which the trains can be re-routed and the collision avoided, with one train passing around the other. Sometimes, it may happen that we can extract falsifiable observation statements from this higher-level theory and thereby construe it as science in its own right...a higher level of science than passed before. Otherwise, it remains interpretative and therefore philosophical. But no matter which way it turns out, the theory remains valuable for resolving the paradox. So here's an extra-credit question for you: given that you call yourself a "philosopher of physics", why don't you appear to understand the first thing about your field of "expertise"? (Now enough already - I'm not getting paid to do your homework for you.) Asmodeus 23:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only kind of theory capable of "resolving an intractable paradox of physical science" is a theory formulated on a level above that of the paradox itself; thus, using the theory, one can define a function which resolves the paradox by mapping its (otherwise conflicting) elements consistently into observables. WP:BOLLOCKS. Well, perhaps, not, but no such (intractable) paradox is discussed here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The mainstream media coverage is about both the person and the theory, and features the theory prominently. The Times, for example, begins its article (Wigmore, Barry (February 7, 2000); "Einstein's brain, King Kong's body") with:

Every age has its great thinkers: Plato looked at metaphysics, ethics, and politics; Descartes tried to rebuild human knowledge; Bertrand Russell gave us mathematical logic; from Stephen Hawking came A Brief History of Time. Now there's Chris Langan, the brainy bouncer, with his Cognition-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

20/20 uses the theory as a framing device:

...I found arguably the smartest person in America in eastern Long Island. [...] His name is Christopher Langan and he’s working on his masterpiece: a mathematical, philosophical manuscript, with a radical view of the universe.[44]

The Popular Science header says:

He's a working class guy with an IQ that's off the charts. What does he have to say about science? Everything -- a theory of everything, that is.[45]

The caption of the article's photo reads:

Christopher Langan spends his downtime coming up with a solution to a problem that philosophers and scientists have pondered for thousands of years.

So the CTMU has not just been "referenced in at least one major mainstream publication" as the proposed notability guideline for non-mainstream theories requires, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines", but has received prominent, attention-getting placement in many such publications, with circulations in the hundreds of thousands or millions. It deserves its own article. Tim Smith 16:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, the mainstream media coverage (which says vanishingly little about the content of the "theory" itself) still calls this theory science, despite the claims of the dramatic chorus. Anville 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As visible above, Popular Science says the theory is about science, not that it is science. Philosophy is allowed to be about science; that's philosophy of science. 20/20 explicitly calls the theory philosophical. Tim Smith 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The mainstream media no doubt like the Good Will Hunting angle to this, but this is still an emerging theory and all the work on it is centered on one man. Wikipedia has articles on pseudo-scientific and fringe theories like creationism, but as of now there is no reason for there to be a separate article on the theory. It can be discussed in the article about the man himself. JChap (Talk) 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the 20/20 piece: "The more he talked, the more Christopher reminded me of that character Matt Damon played in the movie 'Good Will Hunting,' a brilliant guy who almost slipped between the cracks. That's Christopher’s story too." Read that how you will. . . . Anville 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea is not obscure; you simply weren't reading the right sources. If you were asked to prove that Langan is a "random individual" or the CTMU "a flight of fancy", you could not offer a single verifiable source. In fact, you'd find material indicating that Langan is decidedly non-random - indeed, several deviations above the mean in intelligence - and that there are clearly written, publicly available papers regarding the CTMU. You would also find reportage on Langan and the CTMU from verifiable sources like ABC News and Popular Science.
You are taking part in an editorial process here and are bound by Wikipedia policy. By casting this vote, you have failed to meet your editorial burden regarding neutrality and verifiability. If this encyclopedia is such that content can be kept or removed on the basis of unverifiable and counterfactual opinion and innuendo, then it is founded on "truth by democracy". Since that's an insupportable concept, Wikipedia would have no good reason to exist. For the sake of Wikipedia and its users, I hope that's not the case. Asmodeus 17:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage this user to read about consensus, notability, and verifiablity before engaging in this sort of rhetoric. The personal opinion of a single human is not encyclopedic. --ScienceApologist 20:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As long as the article properly qualifies the CTMU, I see no reason to delete it. Granted, Wikipedia is not the place for original thought, but this article is only summarizing and paraphrasing what has already been published in other sources. It is not promoting original ideas on its own. It's not as if anyone is going to read an article on the CTMU unless they follow a link to the article, and links to the article will only appear in other Wikipedia articles as relevance and notoriety dictate. Deleting the article only means that those seeking to understand the CTMU will have one less resource on the internet. Per contra, keeping the article does not force anyone to accept the ideas of the CTMU, which seems to be the fear of some editors. --Wechselstrom 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE as per the revelation of the PopSci forgery. Tsk tsk! You'd figure a wise guy wouldn't be so reckless with his forged archives.

Something tells me a fat dude on Long Island is having a tough time keeping track of all his sockpuppets! LOL Keglined 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Just thought I'd tell everyone that Keglined here is lying about the PopSci article being a forgery - as explained above, PopSci actually thought so much of Langan that its Editors included both an article AND an interview on him and the CTMU! (Hey, Keglined - why don't you go and brush up your jealous edits regarding the penis sizes of porn stars Peter North and John "Johnny Wadd" Holmes? Or maybe just watch some more porn...heh heh!) Asmodeus 19:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've Seen the Physical Copy If anyone wishes to continue down this route, I can tell you that I own many past issues of Popular Science including the one featuring the CTMU article in question.68.122.147.181 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How very unimaginative of you, Chris - you assume I'm a guy. OH, and I just looked at the wayback machine stuff - there is NO record of the "other" popular science article. Sorry, Chris/Asmodeus/Dr L/whoever else you need to pretend to be - your charlatan hide has been exposed!!!  ;) Keglined 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Response I guess you must be talking to me? (In the future, please address me properly - it's "Asmodeus".) Again, you're either a liar, or too stupid to look in your local library for the article. You see, not every article in PopSci makes it onto the web, or stays on the web, and the wayback machine is still buggy, as many know who have used it. (Popular Science, October, 2001; an archived copy of the article is linked from several Wikipedia entries.) Now why don't you go and glue your sorry little nose, male or female as it may be, to a porn video featuring the penises of your favorite porn stars? ROTFLMAO! Asmodeus 19:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No stretch of the imagination could make such statements appear civil. Anville 19:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, one has to note the irony: Asmodeus was the daemon of lust. And in Paradise Lost, Milton wrote of him that he has a "fishy odour". Byrgenwulf 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Obviously, I was merely pointing out Keglined's peculiar editorial history here at Wikipedia, as has been done regarding various others on this page, in a way appropriate to the vicious, defamatory nature of Keglined's own remarks. Would it be too much to ask that you at least try to be civil between your sporadic bursts of fraud and disinformation? Thank you. Asmodeus 22:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Keglined Keglined, please refrain from referring to socks. I really do not see any evidence of that here and it is distracting from the main points. Obviously people are interested in the CTMU. It is certainly notable. The article does not include original research, but rather reports on research that is already out there and possesses a reasonable NPOV in its current state. Tim Smith has posted the Wayback links to both POPSCI articles so please focus on whether or not the article meets Wikipedia criteria. It clearly does. Whether or not you like the CTMU or its supporters is not at issue. Nor is your bizarre edit history. I just hope the admins can sort through this mess. DrL 12:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy Megalomania, Batman... 52 Times! It’s a Vanity Article
    Wikipedia: “Vanity information... can come in the form of an entire article... Such information usually detracts from the direct illumination of the central topic of any article.”
    The CTMU article seems to focus more on Langan than the CTMU itself. In fact, the word “Langan” appears 52 times throughout the article; "CTMU" only 34. A quick check of other Wikipedia articles shows this figure is highly unusual: “Twain” appears in Huckleberry Finn 14 times; “Gates” in Microsoft 27 times; “Hawking” in Hawking Radiation 21 times; “Einstein” 19 times in Special Relativity; and the word “Darwin” appears in Evolution 12 times. Pathetically, in the CTMU article, each of the words “for,” “as,” and “in” appear fewer times than the word “Langan”!
    Wikipedia: “The most significant problem with vanity articles is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors.”
    Yes, there appears to be a number of sockpuppets at work here; until a couple days ago this article had but a dozen editors, four of which have in one form or another rejected the CTMU. Of the remaining eight, five (Asmodeus, CaveBat, DrL, 70.20.16.129, and 12.207.19.38) have contributed nothing to Wikipedia aside from edits to this article, the article on Langan himself, or references to Langan in other articles (also, it is a matter of record that Langan has published pseudonymously in the past [46]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.130.228 (talk • contribs)
Oh yeah - delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.130.228 (talk • contribs)
  • Note above user, who does not sign his posts, is having a conversation with himself. This is the only page on Wikipedia that he has edited. DrL 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As explained, the POPSCI issue contained both an article AND an interview. Neither are forgeries. Please be responsible and don't perpetuate mistakes. If you check the history, you will see that the only reason "Langan" is mentioned so many times is that critics insisted that many statements be qualified (e.g., "Langan states ...", "Langan claims ...", etc.). Also, there are no sock puppets, so please refrain from such accusations. DrL 19:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Voting is one thing; unsubstantiated opinions are quite another. They are of no relevance to anything but your own state of mind, and your own ability or inability to comprehend the article and/or its subject matter...unless, of course, you have relevant, verifiable citations regarding the CTMU on which to base them. But then you'd probably have posted them, wouldn't you. Asmodeus 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course. Actually, I claim knowledge in broad areas; here's a list of articles I've made major contributions to; based on my knowledge, I am of the opinion that its bunkum. I understood the article -- it doesn't say much, and is mostly hot air. When its not just plain wrong. This is not encyclopedia material. Post it on some blog, if you wish. linas 00:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Now, now, no need to try to impress. Most university instructors do not allow Wikipedia articles to be used as a references, precisely because they are too often found in error; hence, you are not citing verifiable sources, and even if you were, you'd need to prove them relevant. But of course, you can't; otherwise, as a conscientious Wikipedia editor, you'd have done so already. Right? Now, I personally don't care whether you think the topic of the article under dispute is "bunk"; that plus a dollar will get your windshield wiped at 5th and Lex (maybe you'd like to start a blog about it). But when you say the CTMU is "just plain wrong" in a forum like this one, you incur an editorial burden. You can either meet this burden or you can't; personally, I'd bet a grand you can't, and that you can't understand the paper you say you read either. But that's neither here nor there. The fact is, if you want to talk this way, you need to put up, or clam up. By the rules of Wikipedia, we can't simply take your word for things when making editorial decisions; believe it or not, you're not sufficiently notable for that, and probably not sufficiently knowledgable either. You need to verify your sources, just like all the plebes. Asmodeus 01:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of expending your energy trying to argue me down, why don't you just edit the article so its not gibberish and hot air? Perhaps people wouldn't be moving to delete if this was actually a reasonable article about some guy who was once interviewed by the press? linas 15:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have plenty of energy these days, so don't worry about it. You seem to be saying that the article is poorly written, but at this point, it has many authors. So we can't exactly blame the original author for that. As nearly as I can determine, the article was (prior to all the pseudoediting) faithful to the material it covers, albeit highly condensed. Maybe, if it stays up, I'll add my bit. But meanwhile, we have to be careful not to make statements about the theory we can't back up with reputable, verifiable sources. Unverifiable statements about content are a luxury that Wikipedia editors just don't have. Asmodeus 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under Wikipedia guidelines the burden is upon those wishing to keep the article to prove that it is notable, and not visa-versa. So far all that exists is a few interview with Langon, and nothing else. It is very unlikely that these will be regarded as evidence of notability. Jefffire 15:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Please stop lecturing people about Wikipedia guidelines, jeffire; I've already established to my complete personal satisfaction that you have no respect for them yourself and cannot be trusted in any way regarding them. You are not some sort of Prime Bureaucrat who can keep demanding additional sources, when the sources already provided are sufficient. If you don't believe it, consider that neither you (jeffire) nor any of your friends could get an idea into Popular Science if your lives depended on it, except maybe in the Letters to the Editor (if one of you were extremely lucky). Sources like ABC and PopSCi wouldn't have touched Langan with a ten-foot pole if they hadn't satisfied themselves, through a variety of channels, that he's the real deal. Please either stop your nonsense, or go away. Asmodeus 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make personal attacks. Although I know I will be admonished for troll feeding, I will note that we could get ideas into real scientific journals, which is what matters. --Philosophus T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "essentially" disturbs me. I would rather the CTMU be kept as a separate article but be clearly labelled as, er, non mainstream to put it mildly. If there is a problem with keeping warning labels attached then this needs to be sorted out at a higher level since it is a more general issue. Sticking the article in with Langam's bio is sweeping the problem under the carpet. --Michael C. Price talk 08:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - but with a proviso that more work is needed discussing CRITISM of the theory. For example see George_Berkeley Idealism etc. The debate is very long and thoroughly confusing. If it has attracted this amount of debate, I can't see how it fails the WP:notability test. However without padding the Critism section out, then I can only see the article being merged with the other Langen topics Mega Society. :-) Esse est percipi Mike33 17:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic will be covered in the article on Langan, since it is inextricably linked to him, and only notable because of his situation. Note also that lengths of debates on Wikipedia are not a good indicator of notability - often the least notable pseudotheories have the longest discussions, since their authors will go to great lengths to support them through sock puppets and lengthy rants. --Philosophus T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE THIS NONSENSE. The CTMU article cites numerous publications, but only one reference is to a science-oriented periodical (and it's Popular Science? Sad). In fact, this link points to an archived reproduction on the CTMU author's own website. A search for the original article on Popular Science’s website yields no results. The 20/20 reference revisits an interview wherein the CTMU itself is hardly even mentioned! Instead, the focus seems to this weight-lifting, "big brain" dude. It's like the tallest man in the world claiming he's the greatest basketball player in history because he was pictured in a non-sports magazine holding a ball next to a hoop. Aside from some references to self-published copies of the CTMU itself, the only other "independent" references are to magazines and TV shows that have nothing to do with science. Newsday, The Times?, Muscle & Fitness Magazine??? If you're not a cosmologist, but you play one on TV, does your TOE really matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.176.34 (talk • contribs)
  • Conflict of Interest A little research reveals that there is likely a conflict of interest in the above vote. Note in history of CTMU article, user 153.26.176.34 links to crank site www.conspansion.com, which derogates Langan and falsely accuses him of stealing the conspansion idea (with no supporting evidence, of course!). DrL 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The CTMU, though obscure and seemingly intentionally obscured, appears to meet a minimum standard for notability; the nature and validity of the theory are irrelevent to this discussion. So long as the article does not overstate the CTMU's notability or present a biased view of the subject, it should be kept. Even if those criteria were not met, deletion would be a disproportionate response. --Tom1907 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't what we are trying to do. The current article is disproportionately large and highly POV. We want to move coverage of the topic into the article on Langan himself. --Philosophus T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP is not a peer-review journal. It is not Nupedia. We have defined standards for the inclusion of fringe theories. This theory meets them. That is the only burden that such a theory must meet to be included in WP. It should therefore stay -- no delete, no merger. However, that comes with a substantial caveat. This article will require a substantial rewrite that attempts to pare down the CTMU's escalatory jargon to something understandable, and a criticism section will be needed discussing the (substantial) rebuttals to the CTMU that exist. Nevertheless, poor quality of an existing article is not grounds for the deletion of that article, ceteris paribus. Serpent's Choice 09:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This is a newly created account apparently made just to discussion the deletion of articles. --ScienceApologist 14:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It is true that my primary focus has been article deletion. My fields of expertise are relatively well-represented on WP at this time, and so I have felt that my time and resources are better spent contributing to keeping WP free of articles that violate its standards (and defending those that do). I am not a sock of any of the actors in this issue (or any other accountname, for that matter). I have no personal stake in the article's fate. For what its worth, as full disclosure, I think the theory is a lot of pseudo-scientific claptrap cobbled together by its creator in an effort at one-upsmanship versus the physics community. But even if my opinion is proven true in future, that does not mean this topic is not appropriate for inclusion. It has generated mainstream media press and no small amount of critical discussion, all of which makes it a plausible searchbox entry and a notable topic. WP is about documentation, NOT validation [[[User:Serpent's Choice|Serpent's Choice]] 05:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) edit due to failure to proofread own post]. Theories that got it wrong are still worthy of encyclopedia space, especially in an encyclopedia with only the vaguest of space limitations. Regardless, a functional version of this article will probably require a protect. Serpent's Choice 04:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB There have been a few comments now, expressing viewpoints along the lines of the article being kept, but subjected to a massive rewrite/cleanup operation, as well as including a criticism section. It should be noted now that twice in the past 24 hours, Philosophus has attempted to do just that, but had his(?) work reverted by proponents of the theory. The idea seems to be that if there is to be criticism, it is to be entirely on the theory's proponents' terms, and no-one else is allowed to make substantive changes to the article without the proponents' prior vetting, while the proponents may write whatever they like there (even the "reception" section they have belatedly decided to include is grossly slanted). WP is neither a soapbox, nor has the theory itself (as opposed to its creator) earnt much noticeable attention. And while DrL is quite happy to class "conspansion.com" as a crank site (which features an idea either stolen from Langan or which Langan stole or some other sordid little saga), she is adamant that the CTMU does not have a "disputed science" infobox attached to it. Byrgenwulf 09:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ScienceApologist deleted 80% of the article after another editor (not me) had just spent an enormous amount of time setting references. Editors should really respect the work of others. Editing implies constructive changes, not sweeping deletes. That is really all that the CTMU article editors are looking for in an article cleanup. No, a "disputed science" infobox is not warranted. If there is a "disputed philosophy" or "disputed model theory" infobox, one would still need to verify the nature of the dispute (i.e., that it was from a reputable source, content-driven and not political) and that such a dispute was beyond the normal controversy and discussion that goes hand-in-hand with new ideas (and old). The page should not make any claims regarding empirical science, but discussion of the nature of science is fair game (it is part of the philosophy of science). Yes, it's true that I labeled conspansion.com as a crank page because it is void of meaningful content and more than likely put up by a Langan detractor just to bug him. People who are familiar with logic and model theory can follow Langan's ideas. DrL 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, are we resorting to scare bold now? Byrgenwulf 13:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was a typo. I didn't put the marks at the beginning of the word "Comment". For some reason (possibly having to do with my browser settings) my view does not distinguish bold. I have corrected the formatting (I believe). DrL 15:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to be well-verified and addresses a notable topic (I read about Langan and the CTMU in Popular Science). Genotypical 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another one of those funny accounts which crop up just for purposes of expressing opinions on this discussion. And I have an extremely strong intuition based on the name that this one is a sock- or meatpuppet, but it could be coincidence. Byrgenwulf 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to add my opinion, not to be insulted. Genotypical 19:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am terribly sorry if I insulted you, I don't think what I said is nearly as insulting as some of the invective that's been tossed around here. I was merely expressing my own opinion. And I didn't make any accusations either, merely aired some thoughts. Byrgenwulf 19:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Haven't seen this many socks since my last trip to JC Penny's. I just read the main article's description of "Expansion QUA Contraction," and had to laugh. No offense, guys (sic), but I'd bet plenty of people on psychedelic drugs have come up with more convincing "alternative" explanations of e=mc2 than this one. :)

Keep. It meets the notability requirements. Whether or not it is currently accepted by a majority of philosophers, what one considers to be "gibberish," whether one personally accepts the theory, what one's philosophical persuasion is, and what one's opinion of a theory's author is have little to no relevance here.68.122.147.181 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 


Wikipendians - Please move Discussion about the merits of the Theory/Psuedo-science to another page.

If the artcle does have notability and critism outside of bar bouncers or their apologists, the article should stay. I am not a sock, I am an apologist for Berkley Idealism; neither opinions affect me unless I see the argument in real time. I can see this becoming a vanity decision (purely based on the number of socks) deleted on that basis. There is no need for paragraph after paragraph of debate. All interested editors have expressed opinions now (Disregarding ppl who have socked). I can only see what i see now, but it would make it very difficult to decide other than a delete. With the original editors continually rejecting rewrites - a blatent POV or WP:Notability. Without allowing other editors to edit text what is the point of the article? Blog it somewhere. With constant RV of critism sections the article it is a shambles.

Keep - with open access and sourcable critism
Delete - if apologists continue RV
Strongly Delete any similar article
Merge with any other ideas/clubs connected to Langam

(put please read Serpents's Choice post below re: other methods of adjudication/ resolution) - why prolong a decision with fruitless debate? Mike33 07:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) repost with amendments Mike33 08:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the primary problem is that efforts to make the page acceptable and inclusive of appropriate criticism are being reverted with prejudice to the improvement of the article, then that is a reason to escalate to dispute resolution, rather than a reason to delete. Indeed, given the widespread sockpuppetry (as well as allegations of the same) and divergence from the topic in this AfD, that may well be the best course of action in any case. Any acceptable version will quite probably require protection. Serpent's Choice 07:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Google search for "Cognitive-Theoretical Model of the Universe" gives only 14,000 hits, most of which are about the author. By contrast time cube gives 44 million. Clearly non-notable from a google hit perspective. Jefffire 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of (probably most) articles would get far fewer hits than "only" 14,000 hits. --Michael C. Price talk 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then feel free to nominate them. Jefffire 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I have no burning desire to remove articles that I have no interest in, anymore than I desire to burn books I haven't read. --Michael C. Price talk 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is misleading. Though still more than "ctmu," the exact phrase "time cube" produces much less than the more unconstrained search: 117,000 pages. (To avoid any "sock" comments, I'm 68.122.147.181 at a different computer.)69.238.48.216 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reality check: out by a factor of nearly four hundred eh?; shows that Jefffire is not a reliable source. --Michael C. Price talk 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nonsense. Not a scientific theory. KarenAnn 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Langan article. The wide variety of news sources confirms the theory/author as notable, but not as scientific (and most of the writing on the theory itself is gibberish). Re: Jefffire, I don't think >14,000 Google hits is a fair standard at all. (Edit: Whoops, forgot sig.) Icewolf34 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's neither notable nor verifiable. Typical physics hack stuff, but more visible due to the press going, "Hey, this genius is also a bouncer!" Has it not occurred to you all we'd not even know about Langan if he'd been a sickly file clerk in Omaha? And as far as 14,000 hits constituting notability, MichaelCPrice, try Googling the exact phrase "the moon is made of cheese." I suppose we should now learn who first suggested the moon is made of cheese, give him or her credit for coming up with such a radical idea, and then create a Wikipedia article about the Parmesan Ecliptic Union or PEU (pronounced Pee-YOO) Theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Thompson (talk • contribs)
Comment. User's only edit. Tim Smith 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually since we are all familar with the "cheese moon" concept it is clearly notable, since we have all noted it enough at some time to recall it now. That doesn't mean it is a credible concept, any more than astrology is. But notability and credibility are two completely different issues, which people here seem to have extreme difficulty in appreciating. --Michael C. Price talk 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost as vain as proudly voting to delete something one hasn't bothered to fully research, eh?69.238.48.216 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin. The CTMU article was created in September 2005 and proceeded peacefully and largely unchanged until last week, when it erupted in controversy. Since then, the article has seen over 220 edits, over 140 of which were during this AfD. An edit war has waged for the whole course of the AfD, with users inserting and deleting huge blocks of text on less than a moment's notice, and reverting each other just as quickly. The size of the article has ranged from 9 KB to 27 KB, the number of sections from 7 to 12, the number of references from 5 to 12, the number of footnotes from 0 to 42. The version of the article that is now protected bears nearly no resemblance to the one originally nominated for deletion.

The AfD discussion itself has obviously also been chaotic. It is filled with one-edit users and IPs, loud accusations of forgery, a large anonymously-added table, personal attacks, irrelevant debates about the validity of the theory, an anonymous user having a conversation with himself, and so on. Many of the reasons given as justification depend crucially on which transitory version of the article the user saw: a user dissatisfied with 5 references might have approved 12, a user calling the article unverifiable with 0 footnotes might have accepted 42; a user calling the 27 KB version gibberish might have found the 9 KB version more understandable.

In short, it is impossible to extract an informed decision from an AfD conducted during an edit war of this scope. At this point, the only option I see is to close with no consensus. Tim Smith 04:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion moved to talk page.) Tim Smith 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This review has been corrupted by moves of relevant discusion back and forth from the Talk page. Unless a clear consensus to delete can be found (which I think it has), the closing admin (which will not be me, even if I'm an admin by the time of closing) should close and relist. "No consensus" doesn't seem to be a plausible result. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment from DrL - Mediator, SynergeticMaggot, has informed me of his willingness to mediate editing if the article is not deleted. I would like to reiterate that a good solution would be to require that the editors of this article agree to mediation during the editing process until a version consensus is reached (I felt that we were close in a couple of spots during the past week). This last constructive edit by Byrgenwulf might be a fairly neutral place to start. DrL 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron 'Whitey' Lewis

Two separate speedy tags removed by page author. Not notable and vanity page by the person about whom it is. Suitable for Speedy, surely Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy G1 by Geogre. Tevildo 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoob

Advertisement and nonencyclopedic. Earlier tag for speedy delete was removed by author. Therefore a listing here. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador's Ice Cream

Ten google hits on this. It is apparently an unusual looking ice cream stand. While I agree that it's a cool looking ice cream stand(see http://www.salvadorsicecream.com/ ), this doesn't make it notable by wikipedia standards Xyzzyplugh 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AdamBiswanger1 13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps there will be a day that every ice cream stand deserves its own wikipedia article, but not at the moment :) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The stand is 70 years old, is an example of Mimetic architecture and Depression-era pop art (sort of), and may be a bit of a cultural touchstone in southeastern Massachusetts. That said, 10 Google hits is an awful low number of hits. But not everything notable is on the web. Probably it doesn't deserve to survive -- at the end of the day, it is just an ice cream stand -- but I'm not sure it's a slam-dunk either. (It does have a cow on top, and I'm not sure if Wikipedia has ever deleted an article involving a cow on top of a building, if that counts for anything.) Herostratus 13:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I would say merge based on Herostratus' comments, but where to? Plus, without a picture it's going to need at least a thousand words. Yomangani 15:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there were an overall article which talked about a number of buildings which looked like shoes, ducks, snowmen, etc, then this could be merged into that one, but we don't have such an article. From doing a google search, it looks like this is indeed referred to as "mimetic architecture". I've added mimetic architecture to Wikipedia:Requested_articles, but unless anyone wants to write such an article in the next few days, I can't see how we can keep this. --Xyzzyplugh 23:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a stubby article on mimetic architecture, but now I've done it, I'm not sure this is worth merging. There appear to be much better examples of the type out there, with their own articles and pictures. Yomangani 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And no sooner did I type this than I realised that it was covered in Novelty architecture, so I've now merged my stub. Yomangani 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kimchi.sg 10:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Faith (band)

Rescued from speedy. Not really speediable, but meets WP:MUSIC marginally if at all, having apparently just one record (I don't know how notable the label, Finger Records, is) and no assertion of major tours or venues. The one thread that suvivability of this article can hang is that one member later joined U.S. Bombs, which has an article (although I don't know how notable U.S. Bombs really is) and WP:MUSIC notes that notability can (not "must") be gained if "...Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable...". WP:MUSIC goes on to say that in this case "...it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such...", but I'm not sure if a redirect is usable here since another member joined a different group (Firecracker 500) which I think has an album or albums and may also be notable. Herostratus 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Sueur-Henderson Football Team

This appears to be a non-notable high school football team. Does not appear to have made any significant impact, and doesn't register significantly on google. The page has been tagged for lack of importance since April. MLA 13:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_14&oldid=63781234"