:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasBizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,Deville (Talk)03:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is quite blatantly an advert for Nukefactory, a non-notable website which scores under 1000, mostly irrelevent, google hits.Rje00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perWP:WEB andWP:V. No alexa rank. 66 Ghits, of which 16 unique, of which over half do not appear relevant. Then there are 2 wiki links. the website does not appear to have any information.Ohconfucius07:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete and/ormerge withHoliday. The article content breachesWP:NOR,WP:V,WP:POV and is aneologism. The "winter holiday" season is a neologism and alternative forChristmas season, and is only ever referenced in the USA and maybe Canada. Also, people do not celebrate "Winter holiday season" as the creator says—they celebrate any given holiday, such as Christmas or Hanukkah. User:Calgary's assertions that "Winter holiday season" itself is celebrated by many is OR at best, and IMO ridiculous. The subsequent sections offer no citations and overall the article is abundant with OR. Additionally, there are many grammatical errors and the author writes that "it begins in Thanksgiving inmany countries"... Thanksgiving is only celebrated in 2 countries—OLP199900:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His alterations are misleading and have nothing to do with "winter holiday season" as is used by secularists for a euphemism. Also, this is a neologism and Wikipedia has policies against them.—OLP199920:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nopolicy against neologisms,WP:NEO is just a guideline. The main reason why we typically don't keep neologisms is because they fail the content policies that you cited in the nomination. However, the article appears to meet our content policies now, so there's no reason why we can't keep an article on them.JYolkowski //talk00:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suggest to Uncle G that he save a copy of the page showing what his additions are and what the original text is. Then, once the article is deleted, he could use his additions to write a journal article on the topic.Cromulent Kwyjibo23:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - I'm not sure I've seen this term in all that wide of usage, but the phenomenon (if that's the appropriate word for it) is notable. I am curious how many other articles this is covered on to where we couldn't incorporate all of that into one article and avoid having the same information in 50 different places.Peyna19:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well researched... I know, it starts off with an uncited statement currently but its not like the topic is new so there is commentary available on it.Ansell 11:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. Notability by association is interesting, but only suggests to me that Pathak should be merged withNurse with Wound, since Pathak himself failsWP:MUSIC. (Note: I am not standing on judgement aboutNurse with Wound.) Pathak lacks multiple non-trivial articles by third parties, shows no charted hits, no national tours. I verify 75 distinct Ghits out of 203 general hits, which speaks to his notability at this level. Also note most of Pathak's Ghits are related to Nurse with Wound, not his own stuff, which further suggests lack of notability.Tychocat09:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Neutral - as someone who has been involved in theNurse with Wound article and several related entries, this bio comes as something of a surprise. Stapleton was of the impression that Pathak had retired from music and, the last time they met, Pathak was running a hi-fi shop in London (this is all inDavid Keenan's book on NWW, Coil and Current 93 btw). I'm a little sceptical on the veracity of this article as it fails to note Pathak's immediate post-NWW activity (I'm not giving the name away here, makes it too easy....) but if sources can be provided, I'll say keep. Can't find anything myself. Possible hoax?Ac@osr14:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of excited to hear he's back tho'. A clean trail for 25 years then he re-emerges? That's got to be newsworthy in the appropriate circles.....Ac@osr14:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This debate has been detranscluded due to its length. To view or participate in this debate, followthis link.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Prod tag was contested based on the the subjects authorship ofthis book, which ranked #891,170 in sales (albeit, it is a specialized subject) Most of the relevant ~500 Google hits appear to be related to his websites.OhNoitsJamieTalk00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of his achievements seem very notable. Also note that the creator's only Wikipedia contributions have been to this article and inserting this guy into other articles. -Elmer Clark03:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There's nothing in the article, and again nothing there in the gsearch. No news articles, just blogs, book lists which have picked up the [one] book of his, a co-edited effort. Alexa Rank for shovelbums.org: 5,694,146thOhconfucius09:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject failsWP:BIO, lacking multiple third-party non-trivial articles about him, no national awards, or evidence of major contribution to field. While we're at it, the book failsWP:BK for lacking major reviews, no evidence it has been adopted as a text, not adapted as a motion picture, no awards, not a best-seller. Gets only 177 distinct Ghits out of 525 or so general hits, mainly from resume websites and other promotions.Tychocat09:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's coauthored a number of papers ( according to googlescholar ) but does not meet the Professor criteria ofWP:BIO and clearly fails the author section. -Peripitus(Talk)11:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The book, relased by CRC Press, is a subsidiary ofTaylor and Francis, a highly well-known book publisher. Keep authors who publish with non-vanity publishers, especially ones from major publishers like Taylor and Francis. --badlydrawnjefftalk00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it just having a publishedbook does not meet the author part ofWP:BIO. If it did then we'd keep an article for every author who'd managed to convince someone to publish. I can't find multiple reviews for the work, information that he's seen as a leader in his field or anything else that satisfies a criteria for keeping -Peripitus(Talk)00:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. In cases such as non-vanity published authors, I go by the part of WP:BIO that saysThis is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. I see no reason to delete published authors, provided they've been published by a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjefftalk00:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've lived next to and met a few authors and learned that, in general, getting one book published in not too hard. If you get a second out then you're usually notable as the first one at least broke even. My primary school vice principle and a low level govt clerk I know have published books ...... If you had an article about THEM that's about all you could say as nothing else hasreliable sources. I think you may have drawn the notability line for authors a bit too far on the generous side -Peripitus(Talk)08:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, I know a number of writers who can't even get a publisher to give their work the time of day. Anecdotes aren't all that useful here. There are some people who would include any book with an ISBN, which would include any of those authors, too. I think published by non-vanity is an excellent compromise, and I can justify it with that clause in WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjefftalk12:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was originally PROD'd as a neologism, and the deletion was contested and the notice removed. As I understand it, the article should now have a proper AFD. Personally, I believe it's a neologism/non-notable term, there is no evidence of why this is important, or any references.The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)00:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge A google search shows up several references to it. But the question arises. If this added will it become part of the lexicon or is it already? What i'm saying is that if this is added to theleet article people may start using it. Wikipedia in essence would be responsible for creating something that wasn't there before. (sort of like Anthropologists and African Tribes)--Aliwalla08:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—If I could see any notable plaec that actually used 1338 as a legitimate term, I might be inclined tomerge. As it is, I've never heard of this so I'd say get rid of it. —Ragdoll19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I might have heard of it, so I support a merge. It might just be in a single game though.— Precedingunsigned comment added by209.222.244.83 (talk •contribs) 15:55, 30 August 2006
Delete — Never heard of this term, ans i suspect that it's only used by a small group of people who all play the same online game --12.4.81.14515:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i dont know what you people are talking about. leeb is a very obscure but nonetheless useful term— Precedingunsigned comment added by68.154.107.121 (talk •contribs) 16:06, 31 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Considering the...lack of success of the first film, I think it's safe to say this ain't happening. At any rate, it fails to cite (real) sources and doesn't appear verifiable. -Elmer Clark03:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete no google hits or anything on imdb, non notablematherguiver 05:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable "actress-model-singer", I can find no evidence that she has ever acted, modeled or sung for anyone other than her husband or friends' very indie movies. Speedy was removed but this deserves one in my opinion.Dipics01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete makes some assertions of notability, but I'm not convinced she passesWP:BIO. Also, removing speedy delete tags is not allowed. If it happens in the future, restore the tag and put {{drmspeedy}} on the userpage of whoever did the removing. -Elmer Clark03:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wishy-Washy Keep although I feel that this performer may be using Wikipedia to enhance her visibility (it is clear that the article is writing by her and/or her husband/producer), I do find a reasonable number of fanzines and sites that have interviewed her in depth[2][3]. Any one of these fanzines alone would certainly not account for notability. I am hard-pressed to acknowledge that the mass of fanzines that covers this artist amounts to notability. --dtony05:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article written by a single use account. She does seem to be a model (of the skin variety). 167 unique Ghits out of 509, many for modelling agents she is listed with. "Heaven Help Me" ranks in the 43.6kth, "Sin" ranks in the 113kth per Amazon.com, no sign of independent reviews. Strangely enough, there's another short Baranowski film "Roxanna" which is not on her filmography reviewed onDVD Talk, a site ranked with a respectable 3827th per Alexa. I could find none of her other movies on the site. She doesn't cut it as an actress perWP:BIO, and not underWP:PORN BIO either.Ohconfucius09:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The fact she may be "relevant" to the genre is not part ofWP:BIO, orWP:NOT, and is unverified in any case. For that matter, failsWP:V for lacking any reliable documentation outside of her own website and IMDB. Only 167 distinct Ghits out of 508 general hits, and Alexa says her website isn't in the top 100,000. No multiple non-trivial articles by third parties, though there are a few movie fanzines. No evidence her movies have won awards, been a major work, nor has she won any awards or contributed substantially to her field. The article is a resume, and WP is not a free webhost. I'm willing to concede one review of one of her films by Joe Bob Briggs, though considering his interest in her body, I'm uncertain how this would relate toWP:BIOs requirement for '...widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field'...Tychocat10:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete There is no possible way that this person meetsWP:BIO. Total vanity article. Non-notable "actress", non-notable "model", non-notable "assistant director", non-notable "singer". zero+zero+zero+zero still equals a goose egg. I'm sure if she works on the article a bit more she can add "script writer" and "key grip" etc. to her non-notable resume but my answer would still be the same.Beaner113:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete she is the top one or two on the castlist of most of her movies, that seems pretty notable to me, but none of her movies are on box office mojo, and she barely returns any relevant google results.mathewguiver 13:48, 31 August 2006.
Comment Her husband or family friends produced her movies. I suspect this is the reason that she is at the top of the castlists.Dipics14:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My sister has done everything this actress has, and she most certantly does not qualify for an article. Piling up a ton of non-notable attributes does not make one notable.Resolute01:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this "non-notable" has done just as much as others (Amy Lynn Best,Alaina Capri, for example) who are already listed at Wikipedia. Why single one out for deletion when others have been allowed? Besides, just because you want an article to be deleted doesn't mean you have to be insulting to the "topic" in question.
Comment While the fact that there are other articles on Wikipedia that shouldn't be listed is never a valid argument to keep an article, I have to agree that Amy Lynn Best shouldn't be listed either. I have added a speedy tag to her article. Alaina Capri was at least in movies produced byRuss Meyer, a notable if not necessarily quality producer.Dipics18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Firstly, allow me to add that the first paragraph of this article is verifiable.[4](NOTE:There is a difference betweenverifiable andverifiability). However, one must consider other factors as well. This article isWP:VAIN and google shows only a few hits which I am not sure of itsWP:RS. To further support my opinion, the article has no external links as well. --Siva1979Talk to me03:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Siva that aggregates of student councils in one state are not notable. Is there anything else they did that may confer notability? --Samirधर्म15:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, per nom and reasons for deletion of List of Heros. Inherently POV and the vague criteria in its present form are of no real assistance.Agent 8601:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently POV, completely unsourced and suffering from ambiguity. i.e.: Depending on where in Canada you are,Pierre Trudeau is either one of Canada's greatest leaders, or one of its greatest villains. I do not believe anyone has called him a hero.Resolute03:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For a correct conclusion, that's a very bad argument. Heroes by country means "People who are heroes to country X" - country Y's opinion doesn't enter into it.
Strong Delete One's heroes are relative to that person, not to the nation-state in which that person lives; therefore, inherently POV. --dtony05:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent a credible objective definition of hero. My friend Bob the blind bike mechanic is a "local hero" (with an award to rpove it) - should he be added?Just zisGuy you know?13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Totally POV, too open to interpretations - a list of heroes that contains William Spakespeare, Kim Jong-il and St. Patrick has no place in any encyclopaediaTx1777713:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of sources, vague criteria, and a strong POV are some of my reasons. AsResolute said,depending on where in Canada you are, Pierre Trudeau is either one of Canada's greatest leaders, or one of its greatest villains. Terminate with extreme prejudice. —Coat of Arms (talk)01:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fancruft and original research article for non-notable video game fictional location. Does not meet requirements ofWP:NOR orWP:V. Prodded but template removed by anon editor with no comment or changes so comes here. --Satori Son01:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable. Would not meet the proposedWP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent, having won no notable awardin Japan, and no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. Would definitely failWP:BIO if that was applied instead.Delete.--- Hong Qi Gong01:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find absolutely no English-language Ghits that weren't Wikipedia mirrors of this article (I know she's a Japanese actress, but there should besomething). Even if it's not aWP:HOAX, it completely and utterly failsWP:V. --Satori Son01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I immediately thought hoax, but some sites do indeed turn up that seem to confirm she was in something called "Lady Karate Fighter VS Rape Maniacs." However, we are still left with the problem of notability, and the article makes no attempt at proving it or showing that she qualifies underWP:PORN BIO. -Elmer Clark04:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the actress's unusual physical build (for the genre), and faux-martial-arts gimmick give hersome notability, enough to tip the scales in her favor if she came close, but not quite up to passing a notability test. And I do believe it is wrong to use theproposed American notability test in judging Japanese subjects. However, unless someone can show evidence to the contrary, this actress appears to be too obscure to come even close to any reasonable notability requirements. Also, the article does not contain much real information that could not be reflected in a resurrected and expandedList of Japanese female porn stars. Delete andmove the information to that List in the future. (A title like "Lady Karate Fighter VS Rape Maniacs" a hoax? Am I to understand people with absolutely no knowledge or interest in the subject are nominating and voting for deleting these articles? Must assume good faith... Must assume good faith...)Dekkappai18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one here said they believed this absolutelywas a hoax. Am I to understand that people who cannot read carefully are assessing and critiquing the written comments of others? Must be civil... Must be civil... --Satori Son18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Satori, show where I said someone said this "absolutelywas a hoax." What I read was, "I immediately thought hoax." By that comment, I understood that the editor assumed on first glance that a title such as this must be a hoax. From that, I further concluded that he must not have encountered titles like this before. Since titles like this are rife in the Japanese adult entertainment field, I presume the editor has little knowledge and/or interest in said field. I would have spelled all this out in the first comment if I thought it necessary.Dekkappai18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I did think this articlemight be a hoax, but only because of the bizarre writing style and complete lack of sources (not because of the video title). I'm sorry that I misunderstood your comment and responded boorishly. Respectfully,Satori Son20:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Satori. Happens to the best of us, especially on as testy a subject as this. I admit to having been a bit on the boorish side to our friend Hong here too. Trying to watch myself...Dekkappai20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sure, it may not be accurate to judge a Japanese porn actress based on the American standards inWP:PORN BIO, that's why I specifically mentioned that she wouldn't pass aJapanese equivalent, having no similarly notable work or appearances as outlined inWP:PORN BIO. Meaning,even in Japan, she has no notable awards, no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. Even if we are to invalidate the use ofWP:PORN BIO based either on the fact that it uses American standards or that it is only a proposal, this person would definitely fail the officialWP:BIO.--- Hong Qi Gong20:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree with you here, on this particular actress Hong. You seem to have found an actress who, to my knowledge and ability to track sources, in no way appears to meet notability standards. Obviously sheis verifiable, though, and deserves a place on a list. I still say Japanese (or international) and American standards have to different though. The Amazon test for instance, would fail the vast majority of evennotable American stars, and shows that evennon-notable Japanese porn actresses (such as this one) have a mainstream presence in that country.Dekkappai20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm actually already giving many of these Japanese porn actresses slack on the notability and verifiability when I mention a Japanese equivalent ofWP:PORN BIO. If we are to strictly useWP:BIO, many of them would have an even more difficult time passing. That's why it may not necessarily be to your best advantage to invalidateWP:PORN BIO based on either that it's only a proposal or that it is culturally biased.--- Hong Qi Gong21:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be trying to say that there are only two possible ways to establish aJapanese adult actress' notability: By ignoring the vast differences between the two countries and the two industries and applying a test of notability designed forAmerican adult actresses onJapanese actresses, or, ifthat isn't biased enough for you, by subjecting them to a test designed for general world biography. IfAmerican adult actors have been deemed worthy of a special set of notability standards, separate from world biography in general, then adult actors from other countries deserve that same specialized treatment. And how, exactly, are you cutting them slack on verifiability when even the least notable of them have a presence on Amazon? Are you actually saying a listing of a DVD on Amazon is not verifiable? Or are you just preparing your argument for deleting another list on grounds of "unverifiabilty?" The list is already being held to a higher standard of verifiability than many other lists I've checked on Wikipedia, and now any source is going to be disqualified, as what? "Commercial," "personal page," or just "icky because it talks about Japanese porn stars?"Dekkappai21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do keep repeating - these porn actresses that I've nominated have no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearance, no notable awards, etc etc. So aside from those, what would determine notability? We've got no criteria here to say, "oh, she's been in 22 DVDs so she's notable." How? Why? Why do 22 Japanese porn DVDs, no awards, no mainstream work, etc etc, make a Japanese porn actress notable, while American porn actresses need a lot more than that to achieve notability? EvenWP:PORN BIO is still a proposal, so unfortunately, until the English WP decide to come up with aWP:JAPANESE PORN BIO, we've got no grounds to judge Japanese porn actresses on a different set of criteria. I mean, some of the editors rejectWP:PORN BIO just based on the fact that it's a proposal. There's no other notability test then, except forWP:BIO. It's already pretty generous that Japanese porn actresses are to be considered under an imaginary Japanese equivalent of a proposed notability test. I repeat - without that, the only notability test left for them isWP:BIO. There's no other test. The only thing left is individual editors using arbitrary criteria and personal opinions to judge their notability. That's hardly good enough.--- Hong Qi Gong21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per Daniel Olsen. The external references ought to be improved, but I wouldn't go so far as to call this "ad-like" - were it an ad, I doubt they'd be so eager to advertise the fact that they engage inmulti-level marketing. -Elmer Clark04:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if only to warn people that this is a MLM company. However, someone besides me should be monitoring it to remove the adspeak. Those dang marketers are pernicious. As soon as you remove the bogus claims, they've added them again through another account. I was keeping an eye on this article, but I have greatly reduced my WP activity, due to frustration with POV pushers.Zora06:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the creators of the article are constantly reverting good edits and adding ad spam, the article should be relisted for deletion with that point made clear in the AfD. Either that or it should be permanently blocked from any further edits - once the spam has been removed again by Zora.Marcus2214:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think blocking the ones spamming makes more sense because vandalism is not usually a criteria for deletion and even if it was this page could be reverted and protected. I don't beleieve that we would need to relist for that reason. --My old username21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be quite well know topically rather than something that needs to adhere toWP:CORP. Being a spam magnet is not something that warrants deletion of an entire article. It can be protected or the links can be added to the spam blackhole. Would like to see more references; there's a jillion ghits to flip through.Kurutalk20:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasdelete. The article (at least currently) describes the language as constructed, so all comments about whether or not this language is "fake" are pretty much irrelevant. I have disregarded count completely: first of all, there were too many votes, but also it was clear that some kind of promotion of this debate took place somewhere. The policies this article would have to pass areWP:NPOV,WP:NOT, andWP:V, just like every other article. Allthree are an issue here. Let me handle them one at a time.WP:NPOV -- the issue here is how to present the substance of the Siberian language work. It's mentioned in the article that "some consider their approach unscientific," but regardless, the viewpoints go way beyond the sources, soWP:NPOV dictates that the article should at best be dramatically shortened.WP:NOT (notability) is somewhat of a problem, because without any publishedlinguistic analysis of this, there's not much we can say. Theproject may be notable, as it's been covered in some media sources, though, but it's borderline, and the article is really about the language anyway.WP:NOT a soapbox applies also, butWP:V is the biggest issue: while WP policy leaves open the idea that we can use foreign language-only sources in an article, it's abad idea in a case like this one where the claims go well beyond basic description: really, until there are source in English, the en.wiki community cannot maintain a policy-compliant article on this topic. While I considered a weasely "no consensus" close here, it'sclearly in the interests of the community to have a decision here, and move on. And consensus is important forWP:NOT but not so much forWP:V anyway. Okay. I hope that explains my reasoning: I read every comment, and looked as best as I could at every issue. I do hope that if there's a deletion review, or any further debate on this topic that those of you who came here to simply add as many votes as possible willnot participate: you know who you are, and you're just making all this more difficult.Mangojuicetalk14:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this isnot a majority vote, but instead adiscussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia haspolicies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, andconsensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember toassume good faith on the part of others and tosign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
The article is nominated for the second time. The previous afd isHere. The result wasdelete.Original research. The language does not exist outside the internet. The only references to the language itself are the authors blogs.There is no published books on this "language", nor anyWP:RS study of it.abakharev02:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is lie. Please read the following links about the old siberian, for example -
Блинова О.И., Мартынова С.Э. словарь образных слов и выражений народного говора. – Томск: Изд-во научно-технической литературы, 1997 – 206с.
Словарь русских старожильческих говоров Среднего Прииртышья. В 3 т. Томск, 1992.
Садретдинова Г.А. История заселения русскими Западной Сибири в связи с изучением сибирских старожильческих говоров. //Диалектологические и историко-лингвистические проблемы. Омск, 1999.
Даль В.И. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка: в 4 т., М., 1989.
And where did e.g. Dahl speak about the "Siberian language"? BTW try to be civil 02:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of remarks "siberian" in his vocabulary. You directly lie and I directly say this, this is not abuse. And the AFD you mentioned was a year ago about OTHER article, which was just a stub. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov02:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please type in Google "сибирский старожильческий говор" or "севернорусское наречие" and read the NPOV sources. May be you do not know Russian dialectology and your lie is just mistake. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a impudent liar ! All of your sources are Russian language dialects about. For example :4. Полный словарь сибирского говора - Full dictionary of siberian dealect6. Словарь просторечных русских говоров - The dictionary of colloquial Russian dialects10. Даль В.И. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка - The explanatory dictionary of live Russian language
Strong Keep May need to be reclassified as a dialect. However, we have articles about various dialects. I see no reason why we should not have this.Nlsanand02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article onSiberian dialects would be indeed a very useable one. This particularSiberian language deels with an artificial language invented by Yaroslav Zolotaryov which does not exist outside the Internet blogs. It has nothing more with reality than the tripling African elephantsabakharev04:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless all of its references are shown to be false. If this were a popular constructed language, we would still have an article on it. If it is, in fact, based on actual dialects, all the better. Note that there are interwikis to four other Wikipedias.—Nat Krause(Talk!)03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links LiveJournal of Zolotaryov and Internet site "volgota group" by Zolotaryov. Then APN - "The experiments on creation of Siberian language should be lauded" (1 phrase somehow related), Kazakh and others - internet articles about Zolotaryov and his experiment. Not a single reference to any academic sources, since I assume the Zolotatyov mentioned in this articles is the sameUser:Yaroslav Zolotaryov, I assume no academic references exist. Then I would suggest to publish something in referred sources then put it here. This the policy ofWP:NOR andWP:Vabakharev04:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to various reasons I gave in the previousundeletion request, here is another one: the request for a wikipedia in Siberian has been approved lately. Anold discussion about WP's conlang policy makes pointed to the conclusion, that having a wikipedia in itself may not be a reason for having an article, but it strongly contributes to its notability. —IJzeren JanUszkiełtu?05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMuscovites fear this cultural movement. Roman Baiduk bydook@gmail.com
Keep, perNlsanand. Article may need to be re-classified, but, besides that, seems to adequately describe the cultural phenomenon (initiative on codification of dialects). It isn't OR, it's an articleabout OR. There are articles about each and every pop-culture thingy, so why not about this?
The claim ofnon-existence of S.L. looks redundant, as the lead already tells that it's an initiative (article could benefit from explicitly stating so, though).
That talks it's based on do not exist, I doubt -- I remember reading "Parting with Matyora" ("Прощание с Матёрой"), and (Siberian) people there talked quite like that.
strong keep This language even will have the Wikipedia soon. It means that the community have already made its decission about the "natural" roots of Siberian!be:User:Booxter
Delete per previous AfD and per nominator, and because this subject is formally unverifiable in the English Wikipedia, as the sources listed above are not in English (which has been a consistent problem in discussing this article). This is not a language or dialect as commonly understood, it's a constructed language, and one which is of no verifiable signifciance to an English-speaking audience. This bears every appearance of being an astroturfing campaign;Yaroslav Zolotaryov is a leader in the web community which promotes this. Note that the article describes it as a "standardised language" which appears to be aWP:NPOV failure.Just zisGuy you know?13:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I can't see why the references must necessarily bein English. Is there any policy regarding that? If so, I'd be very unpleasantly surprised, as it would show utter disregard for the non-Anglosaxon rest of the world! It would be strange if we would apply a similar policy in the Dutch wikipedia (in fact, in a similar discussion aboutHigh Icelandic we didn't even complain about all references being in Icelandic!). In any case, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who know enough Russian to be able to confirm the sources. —IJzeren JanUszkiełtu?13:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go - i know Russian, but i live in Israel, so i think i'm rather neutral, does that count? You'll just have to believe me that i'm rather indifferent to the politics of Moscow vs. Siberia vs. Belarus vs. Ukraine. I also know a few things aboutLinguistics (that's my major) and in particular about Slavic linguistics and dialectology. And based on all of the above i can say that this project is valid:
It's true that it may be done by a small group - but the creation ofEsperanto (spoken by over a millions now) and the creation of modern spokenHebrew (spoken by over 6 million now) were also works of very small groups.
It's true that this group has a certain "national" agenda, but it is very haphazard and i didn't see anything extremist or outright anti-Russian in it.
It's true that to speakers of Russian this language looks like Cockney or Redneck English put to writing, but they completely ignore the fact that it has a dictionary of over 20,000 words and a complete grammar.
They also ignore the fact that this grammar is rather different from Russian. The verb tense system is radically different, it has the definite article which is completely absent in Russian, and it has different phonology. All these things are very well documented as actual features of Northern Russian dialects. Now a group comes and makes a literary language out of these dialects. Let me tell you a secret - many major literary world languages started out as compromises between several dialects that were codified by scientists and promoted in schools by governments. After a few generations they became natural languages. Such are German, Indonesian and Urdu, for example.
Wikipedia is a multilanguage project and presence of the English sources is not obligatory term. SeeWP:V
English-language sourcesshould be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.
I have founded some refrences even IN ENGLISH for him, see the talk page. Blinova was my teacher in Tomsk univercity, I have saw thousands of tapes with records of old siberian dialect, very many cards with the words, hard work of our dialectologists --Yaroslav Zolotaryov14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Siberian language - quickly developing project of the literary language, he is founded on real dialects. For removing this article voted basically on political reason. This only linguistical project, but not political. Why about completely artificial languageSlovio exists the article in Wikipedia, but about language, founded on real dialect no?Previous nomination on removing was for little stub, presently this big and good article. --Yakudza13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. In the first VfD I would probably have voted for deletion as well, but it is obvious that a lot has changed in the meantime. Besides, it's true that the original version was nothing but an ugly stub. Given the fact that a) there will soon be a wikipedia in this language; b) there seem to be plenty of people who use it and the testwiki is flourishing; c) it has been mentioned, or even described, more than once in the Russian press - I think preservation of this article is more than warranted. —IJzeren JanUszkiełtu?13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should vote formally.Keep, of course. Artificial or not, the language lives in Siberian wiki and in siberian sites. The words were taken from veriable sources. In fact, Russian language is more conlang than Siberian, constructed by Lomonosov on Church Slavonic base. But languages like Ukranian, Belarusian and Siberian were collected from real farmers' dialects and have natural rights to survive and develop. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov13:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A false presentation of an original development of Zolotaryov as a "standard dialect". You simply cannot make a "strandard" in 1-2 years. The bulk of the article, "Historical survey" section must be moved into something likeSiberian dialects of Russian language, but the self-promotion of a certain "standartization" effort is a way too overhyped. `'mikka(t)18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also find it despicable that the advocates substitute the question of validity of "Zolotaryov Siberian language" (the topic of the article) by the discussion about Old siberian dialects. Of courseOld Siberian dialects is a valid topic. But we are not deleting it! We are trying to delete Zolotaryov's hobby. `'mikka(t)18:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What are you so exercised about? Maybe it is a constructed language; so what? We have lots of articles about constructed langauges.—Nat Krause(Talk!)18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So what? I've never heard anybody complain aboutTolkien's hobby orZamenhof's hobby. I really don't think that matters. What matters is only this question: is the language significant enough for inclusion? Given the number of articles written about it, the fact that there is a community of users, and the fact that there is going to be a wikipedia in it, I believe there is.
Let me also point out that this language seems to be part of the grey area betweennatural languages andconstructed languages. It is constructed, but for 100 % based on natlang stuff, and apparently made with the intention of it becoming a spoken language. Another case in point:Rumantsch Grischun, created in 1982 on the basis of various Rhaetoromance dialects. Nobody would deny its notability, and many living languages started their carreers the same way. A frequently used method of distinguishing natural languages from constructed languages is this: as soon as a language has second-generation native speakers, it cannot be classified any longer as a constructed language. However, no one would argue that this would be a condition for inclusion here. —IJzeren JanUszkiełtu?19:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting analogy. What does Wikipedia say about Romansh? "Romansh is not a single language but a group of closely-related dialects, all belonging to the family of the Rhaeto-Romance languages." And: "Romansh was standardised in 1982 by Zürich-based linguist Heinrich Schmid. The standardised language, called Rumantsch Grischun, has not been very well accepted, and speakers of the different dialects tend to address one another in German." Of course, Wikipedia has an article on Romansh - as it is considered an offical "language" of Switzerland and literature in the Engadine dialect exists since the 16th century. Where are the books IN Siberian? --Pan Gerwazy11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep (I can't read Russian and can't evaluate all the sources), but please expand more on the "Volgota cultural group". It may not be notable enough for a separate article but it should be described a bit more in connection with this language. Presently there is just one sentence about the development of the modern standardization; most of the article seems to be about the various dialects from which this language was developed. Also, the various sources that Zolotaryov cites in this discussion and on the article's talk page should be integrated into the article itself as aReferences section. --Jim Henry21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article includes no references or sources, only including external links, which failsWP:V. While time may be given to some articles to find sources, the fact that this has already been afd'd and uninamiously deleted weigh heavily against it. Am leaning towardsspeedy delete as one unsourced article about a topic could be argued as substansially similar to another, even if the unsourced information differs in the new article. Regards,MartinRe23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the external links, unless I'm mistaken, are sources demonstrating that the thing discussed in the article exists. That being the case, this seems like more of a formatting problem than anything else. Yaroslav should fix it. How do you justify using deletion as a remedy, though?—Nat Krause(Talk!)23:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what does it mean[language] is standardised form of ...? Standardized by whom? There was similarAfD on artificialHigh Icelandic - the result was keep (per most of Icelanders here) but at least the text clearly defines status of the language.Pavel Vozenilek01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe correct expression should be "project of standardosation"? I am not sure what English word will be correct. In fact, Pomors have other project of standardization of Northern Russian, represented in Pomor site, very similiar to Siberian Language. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov01:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confused by Pavel's question. The intro to the article reads, "The Siberian language or Sibirskoj (сибирской говор) is standardised form of certain Northern Russian dialects. It was developed by the Volgota cultural group in 2005." What is the question, again?—Nat Krause(Talk!)19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer with a question: theKurdish language is definitely real and natural. Does any group has any formal authority in Syria or Turkey to standartise it? No, because those countries see it as threatening separatism. Does it make the Kurdish language any less real? Now the proposed Siberian language is just as real - it is based on real dialects that were never before put to writing. Who gives anyone any authority to use any language? It's anyone's freedom to use any language he wants. --Amir E. Aharoni05:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now the definition was changed to "constructed language", so question about authority has no meaning, conlang may be completely invented. Actually the opposite part tries to change discussion topic in all this AfD process. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov06:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is not a language but a artificial slang developed in LiveJournal blog of Yaroslav Zolotarev, ukranian separatist. This article was deleted from here and from ruwiki as this is not correct to write about "3 millions of native speakers". That's no more that yet another flashmod. Please do not refer to Meta discussion: this is all lie (I don't know why there're 15 'against' votes while I've seen 34 - I failed to locate this edit). There they insist on existance of 8 native speakers, but that's fake too.Edward Chernenko14:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edward, aren't you the same guy who promotes a plan for a "Padonki" Wikipedia? Padonki being, according to Wikipedia, "a subculture within the Russian-speaking Internet originating on Udaff, which is characterized by choosing alternative spellings for words for comic effect, as well as gratuitous use of profanity and a penchant for obscene subjects." It takes a lot of moxy to be for that but against this!—Nat Krause(Talk!)22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The words "ukranian separatist" well demonstrate how educated is their author. Ukrainians have no need in separatism, they for long times are independent state. And I am not Ukrainian, though I have many friends Ukrainians, who like Siberian language. And the rest of message is lie, very refutable (ложь, легко опровержимая). --Yaroslav Zolotaryov01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is as valid asHigh Icelandic andAnglish. Few people use them, but they are clever people and their work has scientific value. It's more than original research and it's more than a stupid game - its creator acutally shows knowledge of Northern Russian dialectology (i studied it a little). --Amir E. Aharoni21:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't quite understand what's going on here. TheSiberian language is aninitiative on codification of certain Siberian talks (which I, and lots of others present don't know anything about), undertaken by some organisation (which I, and lots of others present don't know anything about). The articlehonestly states all this, and why should it be exactlydeleted? Re-classified, possibly. Un-scholar, now? Let's see the scholar sources saying so. And there is such thing on en.wiki as an article about purely invented and quite possibly un-scholarKlingon_language. So?Yury Tarasievich06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGEST DELETE, this language is an original research "invented" by a small group of people supporting separatist movements in Siberia.Sources mr. Zolotaryov has provided do not prove his point of view. Also note the amount of meatpuppets.MaxSem07:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This "language" is a fake invented by Yaroslav Zolotaryov for his political intentions. It includes some real words from dialects of Russian used in Siberia, but most of its "dictionary" have no connection to Siberia, and even to Slavic languages. He lied several times that this language is natural, that there are millions of native speakers - no more trust for him, he is just a LIAR.MaxiMaxiMax07:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This language is nothing but fake. They claim they have more than 10000 words in dictionary, but actually they only heaped up various words in haste, without verifing root congruence: for example, "terrorist" is "страхолюд": "страх" + "люд", but there is no such word as "страх" in this "language", but "траш" instead. --Boleslav108:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the official dictionary in the wiki and online dictionaries in Ukraine and Volgota. The word you cite is just the proof of non-artificial nature of the language - siberians have both roots, траш and страх, and they did not ask you from what root they must make the words))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov09:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those who came from European Russia during industrialiazation, people who destroyed our nature, who made collectivization and privatization, people who destroyed our language and our traditional culture, yes, theyspeak russian. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov10:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous! My uncle come from forgotten village on Yenisei, he is siberian born and bred, his parents and ancestry lived there for a few centuries. Anyway, he speaks pure russian. Maybe you are talking about real natives - Chukchi, Evenk and others, but they have their own language. --Boleslav111:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
)))))) Very riduculous)))))) Centuries ago there was even NO RUSSIAN STANDARD, but dialects were very different, especcially different from Old Church Slavonic, in which modern standard is based. Give any refrences, but not false stories about your relatives))))))) You make me really laugh))))) What also you will say about your invented Enisey relatives?))) Maybe they invented Russian standard earlier than Lomonosov and Pushkin)))--Yaroslav Zolotaryov11:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material per thefirst AFD and the susequentDRV. This is a constructed language of interest to a handful of people, who have apparently decided to use Wikipedia to promote their project.--Ezeu09:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Probably delete due to itsnon-notability outside Wikipedia.Keep If the article is kept, we should keep an eye on the article to avoid any possibility to turn it into a lying promotinal stuff of the invented language and the group behind it.Dr Bug(Vladimir V. Medeyko)09:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC), 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe dutch version of Jan may be taken as NPOV? He mentions POV of enemies of the language there, but he writes many about the language itself. Also, Jan is professional linguist and speaks about the thing professionaly. Maybe simply translate the Dutch version? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov09:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Sinds het voor het eerst werd gepubliceerd, heeft het Siberisch enige bekendheid verworven. De meningen over de taal zijn verdeeld: Oekraïense en Wit-Russische nationalisten verwelkomen het project. Hetzelfde geldt ook voor vertegenwoordigers van nationale minderheden binnen Rusland. Russische nationalisten aan de andere kant zijn fel tegen het project gekant. Beide kanten zien het Siberisch als een typische uiting van regionalisme, of zelfs van separatisme. Hierdoor heeft het project een uitgesproken politiek karakter gekregen en is het moeilijk tot een objectieve beoordeling van de taal zelf te komen" He writes that political discussions about the project make the founding of objective view hard, but the other part of his articles describes language features in neutral way. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov10:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not dialect. It is colang that uses some dialect words. Dialect is someting people speak, not someting that only exist in LJKneiphof10:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong deleate. The majoraty of keep-voters thinks that if Siberian is not a language, it can still be seen as dialect. The truth is, that it is neither real language, neither it is a dialect. It is not real language because it is a colang, invented in 2005. It is not known outside LJ. The references above the discussion are not fake, but they are not about this constructed language, but about real dialects of Siberia. Those dialects are spoken in villages, but not widely. So-called siberian language uses some words from this dialects, but it is still a colang. Nobody speaks it. I think you should note thatMaxiMaxiMax voted "deleate". He is native Siberian himself, and he lives in Tomsk, one of the oldest cities of Siberia. And if he says that nobody speaks "siberian", I would rather believe him.Kneiphof10:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I am also Siberian who live in Tomsk, many members of Volgota live in Tomsk and Irkutsk. So if you found some admin from ruwiki, who vote against siberian language, it is not proof toanything --Yaroslav Zolotaryov10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grue, please look at these refs carefully. This Siberian language was invented in 2005, while the books wich are used as refs were published before. How can they be refs to the Siberian language if they are older than this language?!! These are the refs to the various siberian dialects.Kneiphof15:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant of course the refs at the end of the article, not those at the top of this AfD. I am an inclusionist and if this "language" is mentioned by different media outlets, I consider it to be notable. Grue 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May be it's still not a real language, but it is definitely a widespread phenomenon. So it should be saved in Wikipedia - possibly just being re-categorized as "artificial language". --Shao12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's not a widespread phenomenon. It's just an unpopular slang that used by several people over internet. They have own community when they inventing this new 'language'. All of them presented in this poll. They just trying to make own language, which is just slang, like F, Zh languages etc.Elk Salmon12:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can translate the link provided by Yakudza - "Let us reveal awarenes, and quickly" (reveal awareness - this is Bolshevik slang when they want to accuse somebody) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov16:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No Zolotaryovian! The 'language' is a creation of some separatistaggressive lunatics remotely based on some very old obsolete Russian dialects. This crap does not represent neitherSiberia norNovgorod nor whatever else wild shit they claim to represent. This is not a zilch more credible thanPadonki. No Padonki means no Zolotaryovian.Guinness man14:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE: I wonder how this subject is again on discussion, probably people who allow it didn’t even devote a day to researching this language. Its an invented language by a couple of russophobs (or even only one). The "siberian language" is a fantasy which is only based on different dialects all over Siberia (just look at area of it and imagine how many EU countries fit in it).i underline the word DIFFERENT as sometimes met in one village is not met in another (due to very local dialect) Sometimes its not even a dialects it’s a word or phrases used in a single village for a generation or two and noticed nowhere exept that place (its like a “local slang” if we say it modern in words. But Zolotorev makes it a point even if it was used only on 0,1% of Siberian territory and only by around hundred of people living in a village (I probably will insult Zolotarev saying that every yard has its own slang but whatever). Also many of this language is based on phrases of uneducated population and what is presented by Zolotarev as a grammar or phrase building structure due to cutting endings or putting them in to the wrong plague. The bases of all this Zolotorev’s insanity is an old russian (which is no longer used and which was used ALL OVER RUSSIA and not only in Siveria), and when this platform is not enough - mr. Zolotarev takes an Ukrainian language and invents smth from this. As a greatest development of fantasy mr Zolotorev even was thinking of giving Siberean an arabian writing, but I think now he had to give it up coz its “too much”. Also some sources given here by zolotorev are not standing on his point of view or even sometimes made with his cooperation (web sources). I ask mr.Zolotarev not to comment my message (he wont get an answer anyway) because i'm sick enough of his lifejournal messages asking to vote for keeping his language fantasy in wikipedia and I will not devote my time for discussing his fantasies.213.171.61.13114:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Jaroslav S.[reply]
STRONG KEEP. Its typical moskovian fobia. They told the same about ukrainian language earlier. They told and even now tolk, that ukrainian is non native language just austro-hungary project.
STRONG COMMENT. People, this is nót the place to fight a world war! This is nót the place for Russian nationalists and Siberian separatists to decide upon the future of Russia. This is an encyclopedia. All that should matter is the question: is the subject significant enough to warrant an article? The emotions that it seems to evoke in certain circles seem like a good indication that the language is perhaps a tad more notable than the average conlang (which definitely would not evoke such reactions). For the record, I think all the campaigning around this AfD is a Bad Thing: trying to whip up support in the Russian wiki (where the article was voted down) and among people who voted for deletion previous, is surely not a very elegant thing to do! Oh, and please, STOP WRITING IN CAPITALS, because it reminds pretty much of shouting. Which is not very elegant either. —IJzeren JanUszkiełtu?18:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of Yaroslav Zolotaryov's sources (http://lab.org.ua/article/727/) has the protagonist of the language Dmitry Werkhoturov say "Может быть, к концу своей жизни я и услышу живой сибирский язык." Perhaps, at the end of my life I will even be able to hear living Siberian language. (Yes, "will be able" because he uses the perfective verb) This is what this is about. Irpen is right, this should beSiberian dialect or plainSiberian. It is not a language.--Pan Gerwazy11:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy (as far as I know) against renaming articles mid-AfD. In any case, my rationale to delete the article still stands. The project is non-notable. --Ezeu19:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a sufficiently notableconlang in that it has generated substantial press attention. All of you Russian/Siberian fellows, could you please discuss themerits of this conlang on the article talk page and not here?Sandstein17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP I'm sure it's really free encyclopedia, so i think we need to find the motivation of both sides in this qeustion. The motivation of delete'rs is not very clear, but the motivation of keep'rs is just to respect own native language. Remember - nation is alive until language is alive. We have no any rights to kill this language, anyone of us.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBluz (talk •contribs)
Strong delete This is not real language, it was compilated from most "non-russian pronounced" dialectic words of different Russian regions. Nobody said this langauge using currently codified combination of words. Every russian may understand most of talks of regions - but Siberian is strongly understandable by many native Russian from cities and from far regions.--ShurShur, fromruwiki21:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said earlier:Frankly, I can't see why the references must necessarily bein English. Is there any policy regarding that? If so, I'd be very unpleasantly surprised, as it would show utter disregard for the non-Anglosaxon rest of the world! It would be strange if we would apply a similar policy in the Dutch wikipedia (in fact, in a similar discussion aboutHigh Icelandic we didn't even complain about all references being in Icelandic!). In any case, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who know enough Russian to be able to confirm the sources. —IJzeren JanUszkiełtu?07:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I do not know, if the majority of votes is rellevant in this discussion. You can see - almost every Russian votes "delete", every ukrainian and belorussian "keep". Everybody knows, that amount of Russians is greater, than amount of ukrainians and belorussians. But is this vote about amount of Russians in wikipedia or about the article? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong supportpbato I have to say my full support to STRONG COMMENT published by Iron Jan. This language really needs to be noticeable by article, if such discussions are called by it.
STRONG KEEP . Just the existance of such phrase in several sources prompts for an article that would define them, explain, describe. This phenomena EXISTS. So the article on it has all right to exist too. It is disputable, of course, how to define and describe the phenomena, but we can not deny the existance for it. Only this extensieve discussion is already a proof. If there is such a strong opposition to something - it can not be caused by meaningless stuff. And I guess why some people here oppose... but Russia is changing too. Whether they want it or not. And the best way to deal with it - to get involved into this change, my friends...--Bryndza16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Siberian is set of texts but not set of words 2) this argument is irrelevant to discussion. When russians will cease talk here about politics, about their relatives from Siberian vilages, etc? The voting is about notability of conlang. All the proofs about it's notablity are given. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov04:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than a set of words. It's also a complete grammar with roots in actual spoken dialects and a bunch of text, translated and even a few original ones. In its current state the grammar is incomplete and somewhat haphazard, but its ideas has undeniable scientific roots. --Amir E. Aharoni17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Current edition was filled with politics by russian "editors". I strongly propose restore Nat Krause's version, which was politically neutral, and linguistically more interesting, than to read all this accusations. Is it interesting for english-speaking reader to see all this shit about "anti-russian" language in the article? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yaroslav, this your claim is just another quite fine illustration of your deeds. Nat Krause's descriptions werenot changed (except at the single insignificant place). Only yourdeceitful promo texts were corrected. Despite you didn't write that exactly that those "russian editors" were changing Nat Krause's text, you wrote is a way that one would think so. It's so of you...Dr Bug(Vladimir V. Medeyko)15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this interesting linguistic approach is significantly corrupted by the "anti-Moscovite" agenda and ties with proclamation of "Siberian independence". This is clearly expressed yourpolitical Volgota-phobic POV. What does it do in the linguistic article? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Volgota has rather big Page Rank and you can see this in propriate places, Best way for reader to get acquainted with the language more is to jump to it's main site; however, I do not insist that link to Volgota site should be included in the article. Let your greed be your own sin) I am discussing only the political shit in mouthes of russian "voters" who do not know what are they speaking about, but have come here to save Mother Russia, and those accusations in the article, which you so strongly want to include --Yaroslav Zolotaryov16:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Slav, and your "Siberian" language is quite comprehensible to me. Aren'tthese andtheseYOUR own words on the main page of your project at Incubator?! (Translation:"July 17 - Independence Day. July 17, 1918 The Siberian State passed Declaration of Siberian Sovereignity. ... Hail Siberia!") Is this aboutlinguistics?! Whom are you trying to cheat?!Dr Bug(Vladimir V. Medeyko)08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is russian paranoia at play))) What relation has word "Long live Siberia!" in siberian wikipedia to the description of the conlang? I did not write anything about politics in the article, but russians did. So all this political aspect here is only your guilt. Please acknowledge, that all your speeches here is lie, and you haveonly one motivation, only one goal - you fear Siberians, you fear Free Siberia. So you want to bring your politics, your fear even to this non-political article. My friend Xcobo, he is Lojban lover, said in his LJ about all this "discussion" - "if this is simple non-notable conlang, even simple conlang like Lojban and Esperanto, so why had they come with so big accusations in big amount? They simply feel the strange power of this Language and they fear it". Such were words of non-wikipedic and non-Siberian person about all this meeting, which was prepared by ruwiki in best traditions of Stalin's "judgements". Go back to your Russia, bring your hands back from Siberian Language! --Yaroslav Zolotaryov10:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you have many articles in ruwiki, glorifying Russia, and I do not come to the article "Russian language", and do not write in it -Unfortunately, Russian language was language of cursed Empire, tool for killing dissidents and opressing nations, but you shamelessly did this in article about Siberian. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov10:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is about linguistics. The work on the language is linguistic work and not just a bunch of words with funny spelling. If you think that this is also a political issue, then you just can't get a joke.
Someone said that "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy" (maybe it wasUriel Weinreich, but i am not sure.) I don't think that Mr. Zolotaryov has an army and a navy to fight for Siberian independence, so don't you worry about his little jokes about it. --Amir E. Aharoni09:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that is not ajoke. Further readings (about army, by the way :-) ): These areYaroslav Zolotaryov's words too (at the main page of Siberian Wikipedia Incubator):"January 29 - Day of Siberian Army. On January 29, 1918 squads of the Free Siberian Army began to be formed. Let's make 10 000 articles in Siberian Wikipedia before the Day of Siberian Armed Forces! Hail Siberia!" Ok. And the fact that "Volgota" means "Liberty" is just another so-called "linguistic joke". And after that you dare to say that Yaroslav doesn't have anypolitical agenda! :-/. If his project was a pure linguistic one, it wouldn't meet such a strong opposition. I suppose it's quite wrong to allow him to hide his political agenda by "linguistics". There's no strong opposition against Zaliznyak's Old Novgorodian Language. Guess, why. :-/Dr Bug(Vladimir V. Medeyko)10:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is not about political aspects, even if they would be. So you want to bring politics in non-political affairs, and write your political POV in the linguistic article --Yaroslav Zolotaryov10:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you own recognize, that fearing political aspects of the language, you had come here to lie about it, and all your russian votes is in fact against Siberian independece, but not against the article. But Siberian independence is not discussed in original article, thatwere you who began discuss it there and in this discussion. There wasnothing about politics in Nat's variant, so please restore NPOV version. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov10:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No way. I think, there's no chance that the discussed article will be turn into the promo-page of your non-notable (outside Wikipedia) conlang. As for me, prove that even single my word is wrong, before saying that I'm lying. :-/ Anyway,the judge is the community.Dr Bug(Vladimir V. Medeyko)10:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you think it should be turned into promo page of Russian imperialism:-) I have proved everything, and I have answered to everything, even to the political accusations, though they are completely irrelevant. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov11:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. notability/verifiability problem. A linguistics-related article cannot be based solely on publications in second-rate newspapers and websites (and author's site). This is not a "Hurricane Catrina" news stuff. This is science, which should be verified by experts in the area, not by paparazzi and bloggers.Mukadderat18:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More about "non-notable conlang". This is song in Siberian Standard, translation of "We shall overcome"http://volgota.com/muzika/overcomesib.mp3 Our friends from Sweden have recorded it. After a week will be Volgota Congress in Tomsk, so we shall have more links to newspapers, and maybe some scientific publications. Some people from other Siberian cities and from siberian emigration to EU already have plane tickets. This is objective process of demorcatization in Russia, of democratization in language too. And band of conservators can not stop it by lie and by nationalistic flashmobes. Your time is passed, and our time is coming. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov09:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, once more: Differentdialects in Siberia DO definitely exist. But your Siberian language IS definitely aconlang. It is incorrect to use references to works on Siberian dialects as if they were on your Siberian conlang. It seems to be clear enough...Dr Bug(Vladimir V. Medeyko)09:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite correct, language Standard is based on them and every Northern dialect speaker can recognize the words. Just your opression makes the language movement more political - you opress by unknown reasons, so members of the movement became more angry. You can see in Wiki just top leaders of linguistic department, but in reality this is wide international movement, so all your efforts is in vain. Will the article be in wikipedia, or will not be, will be siberian wiki or will not be, this is objective process, it will develop anyway. One of my ukrainian friends tried to explain this to you already. After a week it will be liturgy in Siberian language in Tomsk, we have priests, and we have intention to make the language sacral --Yaroslav Zolotaryov09:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"All your base are belong to us", er? :-) Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place forpromotion of the new projects (and neither for fighting the project too). Wikipedia should just contain correctverifiable information. As and if the project is notable enough, it will be included into the Wikipedia for sure.Dr Bug(Vladimir V. Medeyko)10:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I do not promote it in fact the other side tries to kill article about language widely disputed everwhere, and you do this by evident dirty tricks like changung the topic of discussion to politics or to discussing Siberian --Yaroslav Zolotaryov10:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you really don't try to promote the project, please keep silence and don't touch the article. If the project is reallynotable, the article will livewithout your intervention. If your target is not to promote the project, just don't promote, and let the community decide what to do; it's that easy!Dr Bug(Vladimir V. Medeyko)11:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only answer to you silly questions. All the promotion is done by hordes from ruwiki, which were invited from Community Portal of ruwiki, and cry all kinds of nonsense here. Please cease lie and cease change topic of the article, and I shall cease to answer you, this isvery simple. You just want to include the politics in the article in order that the article will look like article promoting political movement when this is only article about language standardization project --Yaroslav Zolotaryov11:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this "All your base are belong to us" is just about you. Discussion proves that you only repeat some words like spell, but you even do not know their meaning, words like "conlang, dialect, language standard" etc. Every linguist involved in the discussion tried to explain their meaning for you, but you simply repeat them again and again, hoping that "judge is community", as you have said. Actually you want only force the community to delete article, repeating the same flood in the discussion. You wait that people will get tired of this and they will close the discussion. This funny tactics can only damage ruwiki reputaion in russian net-community, and in other discussions, not about siberian, already damaged it. You can read a lot of critics about wikipedia in russian LJ just because you did this thing in similiar way in other discussions. Maybe it is time to stop it? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov10:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are quitewrong thinking that I know few about conlangs and Russian dialects. You say "every linguist"? Ok, every linguist sees differences in scientific approaches (that you claim to be useless, putting a huge resources in Tomsk State University (one that you attended) to null) and those you use.Dr Bug(Vladimir V. Medeyko)12:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I do not see this russian liguists, who are against me, here, only some western linguists trying explain something to you, and angry guy DrBug, who do not want to cease write offtopic and very-very want to fill linguistic article with political accusations --Yaroslav Zolotaryov12:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this is another illustration of your hypocrisy. Language is based in dialects - this is real thesis which you can not disprove. Being not able to disprove you simply repeat some slogans for a week, and this tactics is stupid and evident --Yaroslav Zolotaryov10:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And where's the hypocrisy? In a statement that "Siberian language" is invented by you? that the fact it uses some natural words doesn't turn it into a natural language? Hm. If this is hypocrisy, the Earth is flat.Dr Bug(Vladimir V. Medeyko)11:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd happy to stop the discussion per se. But as a person who knows something about a topic, I have to point your incorrect statements to persons who know less on it. As soon as you stop writing incorrect statements, I'll stop commenting here. Here's an incomplete list of facts that you try to conceal:
The Siberian language project is your (together with few dozens of active supporters, most or all of whom are not linguists) project to construct a language (conlang) based on real Russian dialects spoken in different places of Siberia (by Chaldons and others).
You (and your group) are "Siberian" nationalist(s) (some are anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists), and the Siberian language project is a part of your efforts to create preconditions for separating Siberia from Russia (leaving it our of control of government of Russian Federation).
The Siberian language project is considered non-scientific by many linguists.
The Siberian language project is young, and created in 2005 only. References to publications before this date can't be used as sign of notability of the project.
And you may repeat all this fantasies 10 000 times, they will not become true, but shameless lie. Why do you repeat them more and more? You are not sure in them yourself perhaps? All this is lie, and I have already answered to this. So you believe that constantly repeated lie became truth? I do not believe so. Please stop speak nonsense irrelevant to discussion --Yaroslav Zolotaryov12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the last sentence istop of russian argumentation here))))))))))) How can we use refrences to publications about the project before date when project starts))))))))))) We only use refrences about dialect on which it is based of course))))))))))))) You do flood only for admins that they stop the discussion --Yaroslav Zolotaryov12:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the very beginning of this discussion. Where Alex writes that 'There is no published books on this "language"' (clearly about your Siberian language project), and you response that "This is lie." and cite a number of books about Russian dialects, not your Siberian language project. This your normal way of discussions. Ok, I'm sure that others are able to read and to find your misinformation. I don't think it's reasonable to argue with you directly. But if any really neutral mediator is interested in finding the truth between us, welcome!Dr Bug(Vladimir V. Medeyko)16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very interesting for me to discuss every sentence of proposed article, this is my project, but not in this place, because you do not discuss the notability, but content --Yaroslav Zolotaryov12:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was you who started to talk about changes in the article's content. But ok, it doesn't matter. To make the discussion clear, could you please sum up below all the statements that you consider to be illustrations of the notability of the project? Please don't put here references to books published before you started you work on this project or other weakly related stuff. Please put here only facts directly related to the project, such as a number of people directly involved in creation of the language descriptions (core team), which conferences were held and when and number of their attendees, and so on. Also you may wish to expose your and your team credentials to the public. It may help to the community to make a right decision. Despite I'm sure in all these things that I wrote above, I'm quite interested in establishing as more correct facts about the project that may help to Wikipedia. Thank you in advance.Dr Bug(Vladimir V. Medeyko)16:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the refrences about project itself were given in the article. Some of them were removed by the oppisite part. I can discuss about those removed refrences for example and prove that they hav relation to the project. But according to wikimedia polices, if something was mentioned in the press, the article sholud be. But you only speak about politics, about dialects etc, when your friends try to take refrences from the article, that's all. All your speeches in this place are only demagogia with one goal - change the topic of the discussion when the answer is clear: the project is mentioned in press and the article should be in wiki --Yaroslav Zolotaryov16:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yaroslav, I'm talking aboutnotability (as peryour own request). So don't run away! Please put here precise list of clear and strong statements illustrating notability of your project.Dr Bug(Vladimir V. Medeyko)17:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFT policy only prohibits OR and unverifiable info, but we provide about 9 links not from my blog and not from my site, and not from any other blogs. Your friend deleted 3 of them, but 6 of them even your politically motivated friends can not delete. So if it was mentioned in press (and will be mentioned more in the next month), it is notable --Yaroslav Zolotaryov18:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yaroslav, first: they are not my friends. By the way, I would mention, that originally my vote was "keep", and only after discussion here I changed it to "not sure". Now, please confirm that you mean the following links (then I will disclose their content to the public, and the community will then decide whether or not they indicate the notability):
Three screefuls article is devoted to idea of decentralistion of Russia and turning it into a weak union of independet regions. The only mention of Siberian laguage project is following: "Так что сегодняшние «виртуальные» эксперименты по реконструкции, к примеру, сибирского языка можно только приветствовать." ("So current "vitrual" experiments to reconstruct a Siberian language may be only saluted."; "Siberian language" links to Volgota site.) It can't be considered as a coverage of the project in a press.
An article about Volgota project and Zolotaryov. Siberian language project is mentioneed as a part of the movement. As for the "Dialog.KZ" site, it is on-line-only resource, and I'm not sure that it should be considered as a public mass media.
Weak delete I'm a fan of conlanging, but this strikes me more as an attempt to promote a private project than as a writeup of a notable conlang. POV and weasel words just add to the problem.Ergative rlt22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perplexed Question - I've read this AfD discussion twice, and I still don't know what the hell is going on.here is the russian wikipedia article; I have no idea what that says, but it's pretty obvious that the article is in trouble on that wiki. A bigger issue is, what should be the normal procedure when clearly the majority of the productive writing is going to take place in the Russian wiki? Isn't it most reasonable (at least for this article) for the EN wiki to just follow their lead?My Alt Account23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no - that would be like using the Persian wiki as a reference for information about Israel. Most Russians really hate it when someone gets funny ideas about their language and will dismiss them on sight. --Amir E. Aharoni23:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this doesn't really answer my question. I've no doubt that many Russians are very nationalistic, and some of these let it get in the way of logic. But the plain fact is there are obviously hardly any non-Russian, native English speakers who can even evaluate the sources on this article. It seems like a waste of time for us to even debate it. Either way, we are relying on the explanations of fellow wikipedians whocan read the sources.My Alt Account00:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I try to help as much as i can. My native language is Russian, but i live in Israel and i am very far from being a Russian nationalist. I support Siberian language out of linguistic curiosity (linguistics is my major) and the political cause of Volgota is of little interest to me. As i mentioned earlier in the discussion, this is a conlang developed by a small group, but it is rather more thanEsperanto orSlovio - this actually aims at becoming spoken as a revived natural language. Thus i find it linguistically valid, albeit rather haphazard at the time. Think of it as a language developed by a wikimob instead of a commitee. The times they are a-changing. --Amir E. Aharoni05:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, thisconstructed language is a key component of a political movement, which itself makes both the language and the movement notable. (How many non-notable political movements devise their own language?) —optikos04:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Helpful to put some context so that everyone doesn't have to click the link to find out what she does. (The article states she is a former news anchor.)Espresso Addict02:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep rewrite and expand. She is a very notable television host and is one of the founding anchors and designers of CNN.[7] Her notability is further established in thiswebsite as well. The subject in question also meetsWP:V which further supports my statement that this article should not only be kept, but improved as well to do justice to this former anchor. --Siva1979Talk to me02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was formerly a major newscaster at CNN. I added an external link, a stub tag, and a category to get the article looking more presentable. --Metropolitan9003:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failingWP:BIO - no multiple third-party non-trivial articles, no national awards, no evidence of substantial contributions to her field. She used to have a famous job, which is apparently supposed to make her famous now. I'd be more impressed by the citation atthe aforementioned website, if it weren't trying to sell her as a speaker. This suggests the article is an advertisement for her next career.Tychocat10:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think being famous at one time makes her encyclopedia material now. I can almost cetainly find a score of Wikipedia articles on people who aren't as famous as they once were.♥ «Charles A. L.»17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, just not part ofWP:NOT orWP:BIO. The policies and guidelines exist to make for a level playing-field for all, not just the articles you happen to like. The fact other articles are worse isn't a precedent, since we judge each one on its own merits. Put them up for afd, if you would.Tychocat02:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it, actually. I don't think she's interesting, or important, as I said, but few enough people are on CNN -- on salary, at least -- that I think it's notable. I'd say all BBC andABC and whatever the South African version is presenters are notable too, so it's not just a country bias. I believe there's a line onWP:BIO to the effect of "this is not intended to be an exclusionary list."♥ «Charles A. L.»17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; the criterion is "notable," not "interesting." If she were only a local newscaster I'd say delete -- I'm not sure we need an article onGabe Pressman, say -- but she's been on CNN and in an AT&T commecial.♥ «Charles A. L.»17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going from "weak keep" to "keep" because previewing showed me there is an article on Gabe Pressman. Let's say, we don't need an article on my father.♥ «Charles A. L.»17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My dad occasionally mentions the idea of writing his memoirs. If they're published, but by iUniverse, I might be willing to AFD my own father. As for Pressman, however, I'm going to err on the side of not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.♥ «Charles A. L.»17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she crosses the finish line for notability, based mostly on reading the biography on the PBS website mentioned above - she has won awards from a variety of organizations, was CNN, is involved with PBS. Article needs expansion though.Seaphoto20:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hoaxes: Articles that present unverifiable and probably false ideas, theories, or subjects. Occasionally these can be deleted as vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous, but remotely plausible articles should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum., meaning an admin may speedy it at their discretion as it's so ridiculous.--Andeh13:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesnot present a probably false subject. It clearly asks about a water expandertrick. That such a mechanism is a trick is probablytrue.Uncle G11:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. No speedy deletion criterion covers this article. The closest is "no content", but there is a sub-stub in the first sentence of the article.Uncle G07:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an entry that should go unfulfilled, moreover. I've looked, and cannot find any evidence that any such trick, magic or otherwise, actually exists. The nearest that I've come is an unanswered Usenet post from 1999 that simply makes the same request for any information that was made in this article.Uncle G12:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies: My computer was being screwy and I couldn't make a request, so I created the article. I have requested it now, though. Thanks!Can-Dutch20:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Content is not encyclopedic. This reads like a technical reference, not an encyclopedia article. If anything, information like this belongs in a WikiBook, not on Wikipedia.
Most content is plagiarized from RFC2445 itself. The page acknowledges that the content has been "directly quoted, extracted and/or reformatted" from the RFC, but this citation does not change the fact that such inclusion is inappropriate for Wikipedia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Delete failsWP:Music article was previously nom'ed for speedy, and deleted as non notable. Article is now reposted, and probably should have been speedy delete as reposted material. Article is blatant spam.TheRingess06:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that speedy criteria only applies if the article went through a full AFD. If the article was deletion by speedy deletion or by proposed deletion it cannot be deleted as reposted material. In the future it would be better to tag it for the reason the article was speedied in the first place because that would have a betetr chance of success. --My old username03:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question I really don't understand how this article is blatant spam, other than the fact that it's about something one could conceivably purchase. Which would make an untold number of articles on albums, cars, hamburgers, etc. spam as well.Dina21:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't understand how this failsWP:Music; please explain.Worthlessboy1420 (Article creator) 06:45, 30 August 2006
I was the one who speedied this first, but the claim to A7 is not strong on second look. It's an album article, not mainly on the musician or group. The musician was (is?) from a notable band.Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh06:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Article adheres to notability outlines and in no way failsWP:Music. The repost was an accedent on my part and I take full respocibility.Tim Armstrong is a notable, and arguabley the most influencial musician in modernpunk rock history. Although, the album is avirtual record, it is a record none the less. The album has a predetermined number of tracks, and possibly a predetermined order, which is as of yet unknown. This article's story, and the album is still unfolding, and it remains to be seen if the album will only be available online.Worthlessboy1420 (Article creator) 02:45, 30 August 2006
Weak keep - Separate album (assuming it is new/different material, not just a re-release) by a notable artist. Weak keep due to freeness and lack of secondary sources at the moment.Wickethewok14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Please don't have this deleted. It's still an album being distributed by epitaph.com, not just through Myspace. This article is good and so is the first song off the album. Keep it.
Strong Keep --Tim Armstrong and the bands he's been inOperation Ivy (band)RancidTransplants andDance Hall Crashers are all quite famous in the ska/punk scene. Op Ivy gets 965,000 Ghits and if you check [here] you'll see that information about this band is linked to from several articles about this period and its music. I may be showing my age here, but seriously -- Op Ivy and Rancid werehuge in the late 80's early 90's alternative music scene. And, as others have stated, the "distributed over Myspace" in the nom was based on a misread. I think a new solo album by a member of several notable bands is in no danger of violating of WP:MUSIC.Dina21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or failing that merge. I think we can all agree thatTim Armstrong is notable, and bear in mind the following fromWP:MUSIC: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." -Elmer Clark04:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based solely on the notability of the performer if nothing else. A lot of artists are self-releasing music or doing so in "non-traditional" forms. Just because it's being issued solely through MySpace, or a personal website, or iTunes can no longer be used as criteria for disqualifying such releases, I'm afraid. It's 2006.23skidoo13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, album does not exist yet,WP:NOT a crystal ball. If you want, merge to the only song on the album that exists so far, and make a full article later.Kusma(討論)20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He's notable, album seems to be new songs coming out by the month, I don't think WP:NOT:crystal ball applies. --kingboyk20:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could be better (e.g. sourced), but albums from notable artists are generally notable, and I do not want to delete simply because the album is being distributed through non-customary channels.--danntmTC02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Tim Armstrong doing something off the wall again, what a surprise. He's never gotten scads of mainstream media coverage, but it would be nice to get some references outside Epitaph. Shellbabelfish15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Was prodded and removed. Possible hoax, seemingly not notable, is this something enyclopedic? Looks more like a back-door advertising gimmickAvi16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A google seach returnsover a half million results. Many of these are reliable, albeit dedicated solely to romantic topics. I once sent a Sweetest Day card. It's a "Hallmark holiday" but in midwestern states it does bring in a lot of revenue in for flower, candy and card shops. I'd say that makes it notable, if only for the economic benefits for certain industries. It may also be notable for the controversy surrounding it. I wouldn't oppose amerge intoHallmark holiday.Srose(talk)16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the hoax tag to the article because theHerbert Birch Kingston story of the origins of Sweetest Day is a hoax in my opinion.Primary source information from The Cleveland Plain Dealer Newspaper published October 8th, 1921 and October 8th, 1922 shows a very different beginning to the holiday. Here is a more factual account of how Sweetest Day began:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweetest_Day&oldid=71758612 . (I realize that this version needs further editing/removal of caps/formatting) I do not believe the category of Sweetest Day should be deleted; it should just be reported for what it is: an 85-year-old hoax.Miracleimpulse16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I agree with your hoax tag. There is a difference between "hoax" and "popular mythology". The popular mythology of the day is that Kingston created it as day to honor orphans and shut-ins... and that version of events has been widely reported. This should be in the article (seeWP:Vverifiability not truth). If there is an alternate version of events that can be sourced (i.e. the Cleveland Plain Dealer Newspaper article, this could be included as well as an alternate, sourced, version of events. The article space is big enough for both versions without making any judgements as to which is true.--Isotope2316:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meetsWP:V and yes... this is real. It's a "second Valentine's Day in the fall" celebrated in 4 midwestern states, and it is fairly prevalent there (as are the allegations that this is a "Hallmark Holiday"). Midwesterners are strange folk.--Isotope2316:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being from Illinois, I can tell you that Sweetest Day was never heard of before about 1989 when Hallmark began marketing Sweetest Day cards here.Miracleimpulse16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweetest Day is documented inMaud Lavin, ed. (2004-10-04).The Business of Holidays. Monacelli. ISBN 1580931502., inScott C. Martin (1997)."Consumer Rites: The Buying and Selling of American Holidays".Journal of Social History.31. (which describes it as "a ploy by the confection industry" as a reincarnation of Candy Day), and inBennett Madison and James Dignan (2002-12-28).I Hate Valentine's Day. Simon Spotlight Entertainment. ISBN 0689873727. (which says that "Luckily, Sweetest Day has failed to attain the global stranglehold of the abhorrent Valentine's Day."). The main problem with this page is an accuracy dispute. Deletion is not the means for solving that.Keep.Uncle G17:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a (semi) real holiday, albeit only in the Midwest. There are usually displays in Hallmark stores and radio ads for a week or two before Sweetest Day. This is where I first heard of it. --Transfinite17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've lived in 3 of the 4 states listed in the article, and I can attest to the fact that this is a real phenomenon (I hesitate to call it a "holiday," as it is a sick invention of the flower, candy and card industries--then again so are much of the practicies in the modern versions of Halloween, Valentine's Day and Christmas). It's a real fake holiday, so to speak.Rohirok18:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I live in Wisconsin, and i have accually celebrated this day. It is an emerging holiday here in the mid-wast, that seems to be getting more and more popular by the year. I've even seen the Holiday mentioned on calenders distributed widely through the US. The accuracy of this article, however, is debatable.
Keep I work at theVermont Teddy Bear Company for a couple of holidays a year. Sweetest Day, while not their largest holiday, is at least big enough to hire on extra part time help to the tune of about 50-100 extra bodies. So it's known and has effects far outside just Wisconsin.Dismas|(talk)21:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh, it's a holiday is it? Is it religious? Nope. Is it official? Nope. Is it notable apart from that among a wide swatch of the population (Hallowe'en, Valentine's)???? Nope. NN.-Kmaguir106:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, show me some wiki guidelines on holidays which say that a non-religious, non-official, non-notable holiday, and I mean this strictly--not just what has been mentioned--should be included. I wouldn't even have problems including fictional holidays, like "Festivus", fromSeinfeld which I'm sure is on wikipedia, because that's notable, but its notability stems from the fact it was onSeinfeld, not from the fact it's a real holiday. I take the position that holidays, real holidays, not just those invented, as this one is, by corporations and without involvement from the people, at a religious or state level, must include celebration or commemoration--I'm not sure how people celebrate or commemorate this. If it were fictional, it'd be notable as a joke. But as real, it's about as notable as "Win a Hawaiian getaway week". A few pop culture references do not a holiday make--they may make something else. But as long as it's an entry whose purpose is presenting a holiday,delete. If they want to call it other than a holiday, they can add it back.-Kmaguir108:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take the position that holidays [...] must include celebration or commemoration — I'm not sure how people celebrate or commemorate this. — Then please read the article. It actually tells you how this holiday is celebrated or commemorated.
A few pop culture references [...] — There are no pop culture references in the article.
real holidays, not just those invented — Most of the holidays that you categorize as "real" were in fact invented. Many religious holidays, which you accept, were invented, for examples. They were just invented longer ago than 1921. All secular holidays, such asArbor Day andLabor Day, are invented. Your espoused criterion that holidays must be "real" and not "invented" is an entirely faulty one. Youractual criterion appears to be who the inventor of the holiday is. You're happy to accept holidays invented by churches, legislatures, unions, and television programme scriptwriters, but not holidays invented by greetings cards and gift companies. That's a highly subjective judgement, and not a particularly consistent one (given the inclusions of scriptwriters and unions).Notability is not subjective. It is a failure of our duty as encyclopaedists to exclude things from Wikipedia that we personally don't like, or think shouldn't exist. As encyclopaedists, we should be looking at what the sources say. The sources discuss this holiday.Uncle G10:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holiday is celebrated in Ohio. My parents say it was created by Hallmark to sell more cards. IS verifiable holiday.Trevor15:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantkeep. It isn't really "notable" or important, and I understand why many would just as soon not give it more publicity. Still, it exists asfakelore and a marketing phenomenon. -Smerdis of Tlön16:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unsure. There are a number of new stubs like this one representing Lovecraft's "miscellaneous writings"--short, rather goofy non-horror items written mainly as jokes, plus some horror fragments; this one is a parody of romantic melodrama. It's possible to write a brief description of each one, along with the circumstances under which they were written; each of these gets a couple of paragraphs inAn H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia. How notable these things are, I don't know.Nareek03:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's now been expanded a bit--I don't think that it can be expanded a heck of a lot more, so people can judge pretty well whether it's a notable-enough subject for an article. I guess, having put a little work into it, I would change my vote toKeep.Nareek04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia isnot a place for instruction manuals, nor user and travel guides. The article states"This list is intended to serve as a comprehensive basic introduction to those languages", indicating that it is contrary to such policies. The information in this article can be added to and looked up by phrase atWiktionary and by language atWikitravel (I know we can’t transwiki to wikitravel, but some of the information isalready there). Another possibility isWikibooks. As it stands, there are nocited sources, making this page a mix ofunverified material and/ororiginal research. In addition, the scope of the article is so large as to be virtually indiscriminate. The article is nearly 160kb long and there is nothing about its scope that would limit it from growing. There is the possibility of splitting the article into subpages, but the above concerns overshadow such a solution.AEuSoes102:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with some reluctance. Clearly a lot of work has been put into this, but I agree that it is in no way within the scope of Wikipedia. This is probably all already available on Wiktionary, but if not transwikiing would definitely be a good course of action. -Elmer Clark04:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, the only argument for keeping offered other than "gee it's already so long, it sure would be a shame..." or "I think it's neat" is that is has some value in the study of linguistics, which I consider a dubious claim at best, and I think it was well responded to. People need to realize that Wikipedia is not a repository for "interesting stuff" - how interesting something is is definitely not a criterion for inclusion. Sticking with my delete vote on this one. -Elmer Clark05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It really would be a shame to delete such a useful guide. Think of how much money it would cost someone to get this information in a reliable manner without this wikipedia article?Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article, so it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Transwikiing to Wikibooks or Wiktionary (or transferring to Wikitravel) would be feasible only if the information were verifiable. As it is, I've found some mistakes in languages I know, so who knows what other mistakes there might be? Better not to propagate misinformation.—The precedingsigned comment was added byAngr (talk •contribs).07:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm new to Wikipedia, and not sure I understand all nuances; but similar sort of material might have been found in an old-fashion 'dead tree' encyclopaedia. The old encyclopedists were not against including articles you could learn from; and I think the phrases main function is to illustrate language similarities and differences.JoergenB12:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion to group members of particular language families together in tables (thereby showing the similarities with greater ease) was made in October 2005 but no one was willing to make the appropriate changes. Showing phonological similarities between languages is best done with individual words and showing syntactic or morphological similarities is best with phrases that aren't necessarily "common." The scope of hypothetical nameless "old-fashioned" encyclopaedias is not really relevant unless one wishes to change Wikipedia's consensus-forged policies.AEuSoes102:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that organising by 'language groups' is superior for displaying the similarities and differences. (There is some controversy about grouping, and indeed about the whole classical tree model for language relations; but (naively??) I don't expect much controversy in this case.) I am quite willing to undertake a reorganisation along these lines myself. However, I fear I do not understand all of your policies (even if I've read some recommended guidelines and have browsed some talk sides and histories, trying to understand 'what really goes on'). Is it OK and normal to do a drastic re-organisation of a page, while a discussion on its deletion goes on? Will this influence the voting process in some way? I'm not so happy about the idea of doing the work to-day and finding out that it's all been deleted to-morrow, without letting people viewing the result and possibly reconsidering their votes.
I also would like to know if there is some simple way to make a manual index of a page (apart from the automatic one). If I reorganise by language branch, I think it would be useful to complement this with an alphabetic index.JoergenB12:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is no encyclopaedic topic "common phrases in various languages". Transwiki if we can find a righteous home for it, in recognition of the effort which has clearly gone into it.Just zisGuy you know?13:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: There's so much information in this page, it shouldn't be wasted, and in my opinion itis relevant, even if it's only marginally encyclopaedical. —N-true14:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a highly informative page on a noteworthy subject. Quite useful for comparative purposes as well. Hardly an instruction manual or travel guide, or even an adequate phrase book. -Smerdis of Tlön16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information is indeed useful for tourists and backpackers but not in the least encyclopedic. It belongs in other wikiprojects and it can be moved gradually over a period of time. It's also a perfect opportunity to make it better known to our contributors that Wikipedia is not the sole repository for all information on the internet. /PeterIsotalo18:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wherein would that disruption lie? The enforcement of WP:NOT or the bonus argument of diverting misguided attention to other equally valid and relevant wikiprojects? /PeterIsotalo09:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Enforcement", in a word, is what's gone wonky with AfD these days. It seems that at least some editors are prepared to discount "keeps" because they are not stated in terms of rules lawyering. Observing that a page is useful and informative, or that it has been here from very early in the project and has thousands of edits from many different hands, is for some reasonnot good enough. If the "rules" lead to this page being deleted, there's something wrong with the rules. -Smerdis of Tlön12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion in Wikipedia is not per se a mark of quality (or most fancruft would've been deleted and hopefully forgotten by now) and neither is it an insult to the contributors that the content they have amassed over the years is moved where it actually belongs. All wikiprojects have their own role as reliable sources of information, and I think you should reconsider your view of them as mere scrapyards where content not accepted in Wikipedia is sent to wither and die of neglect. /PeterIsotalo14:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything of the kind about the other Wikiprojects. What I strongly object to is the attempt to ignore consensus and intimidate those who disagree with this proposed deletion by proclaiming an intentional disregard for opinions that do not cite chapter and verse. Again, if the rules now require this, the rules have become the problem, not this article. -Smerdis of Tlön15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree with Peter's discounting of votes, I do find this discussion to be a largely one-sided one intellectually. None of the keep votes have been followed by any serious rebuttal to the claims in the nomination. I share Peter's frustration in the debate's one-sidedness becauseWikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy and yet many people are operating it as if a simple vote count is enough to build consensus.AEuSoes104:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to cite vacuous clichés here, but "the map is not the territory." Every word ofWP:NOT has valueonly to the extent that it is an attempt to synthesize prior consensus; it is not a law to set boundaries to consensus. This page has been around in one form or another sinceDec. 24, 2001. It is valuable and useful, and frankly the obliteration of its history for average users would shock my conscience. To expect arguments founded upon policy rather than the opinions of users as to what belongs here makes policy agolden calf. This debate is one-sided for only one reason: one side refuses to listen to arguments that aren't framed in their terms. As a debating ploy, this is a fairly good "I win" button, but it has nothing to do with consensus. This is what riles me: not that the page has been once again proposed for deletion, but rather that the rules have taken on such aFrankensteinian life of their own that some people feel cowed to say that "while yes, the page is valuable, the rules say it should go; so it is written, so let it be done." Again, this suggests not that the page should be deleted, but that the rules have turned into something they never should have been allowed to become. -Smerdis of Tlön05:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right,WP:NOT is a general outline that certainly has exceptions, but what is the justification for making this article an exception? That it's useful? It's just as useful at other wikimedia sites. Are there any other reasons?AEuSoes123:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given some of them. It isn't a "usage guide" or a "slang and idiom guide;" certainly not within the meaning of these phrases, which by my understanding were intended to exclude every new neologism that appears inrap music to have an encyclopedia article, not this. It has an almost six year history of being at Wikipedia, with thousands of edits by more than a hundred editors. All of that vanishes if the last text is simply transwikied. I tend to think of it more as being in the tradition of aMithridates, a classic reference book containing samples of many different languages. We could re-start it with other widely available texts in translation such theLord's Prayer, but that would raise POV issues and may occasion sectarian strife. The current selection of texts add usefulness to the samples. -Smerdis of Tlön03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one has argued that it's a usage guide; I've argued that it's intended to be a travel guide.
That's a lot of editors. No one found the time to back up their claims and conform the article to two of Wikipedia's three main policies?AEuSoes104:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not look like a travel guide to me. Yes, it is useful to travellers, but so is, for example,List of embassies and high commissions in Ottawa orTravel medicine. Being useful to travellers doesn't make something a travel guide in the spirit of the WP:NOT policy. In the spirit of WP:NOT, I think you have to ask, "Is this of value for intellectually curious people who aren't travelling, as well as for people who are travelling?"Kla'quotSound05:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of the "keep"s seem to say things along the lines of "it's useful, it's important." No one's disputing that. It reminds me of a lot of AfD discussions where a "keep," or the article itself, says "I'm trying to provide a guide ..." or whatever. That's nice; most of us are trying to create an encyclopedia. –♥ «Charles A. L.»18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep somewhere within Wikimedia projects. Far more encyclopedic than Wikipedia's sevenlists of Pokémon. If it doesn't cite sources, cite sources. If it needs cleanup, clean it up. If it has mistakes, correct the mistakes. These are not reasons to delete. If it violates WP:NOT, identify the right Wikimedia project and move it.Fg201:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since it does violate WP:NOT and it's already on other Wikimedia projects, should we interpret your comments to mean that you'd like it deleted, Fg2?AEuSoes102:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was unclear. My "keep" vote is a vote to keep the information in Wikimedia projects. If it's kept on a Wikimedia project other than Wikipedia, I'd be quite happy.Fg204:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a scope problem and has to go. "Wikipedia articles are not... a usage guide or slang and idiom guide". Whilst I find it potentially useful, this article is very clearly outside the scope of wiki perWP:NOT. I am very tickled by the inclusion of Scottish, which I think iscomplete bollocks, as it is the transliteration of what a particular regional Scottish accent. Wiki is alsoWP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Aside from the main recognised languages, dialects and regional accents abound. Editors have obvious difficulty drawing the line atpidgin english, or pidgin French. We have included the main Chinese dialects, but there are tens of others. Now what aboutBrummie,Scouse orGeordie accents, for example?Ohconfucius02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been pointed out by some of our resident linguistsin the previous AfD that the comparative value of standard phrases in various languages is very low. Idioms of this kind don't allow for any kind of serious linguistic comparison because the phrases vary according to custom and culture, not the languages themselves. Comparisons like the ones you're referring to is best done withSwadesh lists, and we already have tons of them. Incidentally, there are plenty of people who think they should be deleted too. /PeterIsotalo05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this list is not a tool for serious linguistic comparison, however it is wonderful for more informal comparisons. E.g. it's something of a revelation to monolingual English speakers that a language could have three ways to say "please." Examples are also really the only way to get a sense of how the language sounds.
As AdiJapan points out below, the introduction is a problem. However the rest of the content seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. Some articles on individual languages (e.g.Greek) have a short list of phrases in the language, which is what this article mostly consists of. So perhaps there is a problem oforganization, which can be resolved by splitting this article into smaller articles and linking them through an index page or category, but thecontent itself should be improved, not deleted.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, examples are of great educational value for the general reader. We're talking about a small number of examples per language, not a phrasebook.Kla'quotSound
"Informal comparisons" sounds like trivia to me. Having language samples is never frowned upon, but if you want to get the feel for how a language sounds you should use excerpts from literature or lists ofminimal pairs instead of tourist phrases. No recent language FAs have these kinds of lists because they're considered too trivial for serious encyclopedic articles. /PeterIsotalo08:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see your point. Looking over these comments, I get the sense that this AfD debate tends to split along "serious linguistics" versus "populist" lines. Are 15-20 examples of phrases per language, along the lines of, "How do you do?", too trivial for inclusion? I would argue that the general reader does not think so. Wikipedia has room for both literary and popular examples.Kla'quotSound16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki, then delete Ironically while taking a break from Wikipedia, I found this article in a Google search while looking for how to say something in Japanese. Not bad, but this isn't the place for this info. Lets put it on a sister project so it can have a happy home. --Ned Scott02:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly second this - the article belongs on Wikitravel, not in Wikipedia, but it would be a royal shame to discard all that work.ropable07:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The only wrong thing about this article is its introduction. Otherwise I find the contents undoubtedly encyclopedic. It is the only article we have that allows a direct comparison between languages. The introduction should focus on that instead of talking about tourists.AdiJapan13:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article survives AfD, we should rewrite the intro and include links to the Lord's Prayer list and Swadesh lists. To avoid confusing the current debate, I'm not going to do this yet.Kla'quotSound17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep. I refer to this page a lot, I dont want to download it. I think it is a shame that people seriously want to deleate valuble infomation from wikipedia.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySakana-g (talk •contribs)
Strong Keep : This was the first page I ever edited three years ago today. It has grown into something that oodles and oodles of people on the internet have found of great value. Sample sentences of languages do have a place within an encyclopedia, and I recall seeing such before. Though this is admittedly the largest compilation I've ever seen. I really see no strong reason why it should be deleted. --Chris S.22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Common phrases do have a place in an encyclopedia, especially to those who are trying to learn a new language. Information and facts out on the web are unchecked, unlike Wikipedia where its users constantly keep an eye over any vandalisms or inappropriate translations. It is because of this that I would like Wikipedia to keep this page.Iman110223:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Same reasoning. While it may not be strictly "encyclopedic", it has great value as a reference. Maybe one day there will be a separate Wiki language reference... until then, if it needs work, it can be fixed; if it violates policy, then policy needs to be reviewed in the face of obvious USEFULNESSTwang08:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. agreed with nominator. A wictionary or textbook kind of information, nonencyclopedic. Also POV problem. what is "common phrase"? Hopelesly unreferenced. Finally verifiability problem: for example, in one language "Good afternoon" is translated as (a version of) "Salaam aleikum".Mukadderat18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The list in its current form is not encyclopaedic and should probably be transwiki'd. However, some form of list of greetings in various languages would be encyclopaedic. Other problems include lack of sources. The main current problem I'd say is the title "common phrases" and "various languages" is not precise enough. -FrancisTyers·19:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is deletion attempt three or more, so it becomes more and more difficult not to repeat old arguments. My reasons echo the user Catherine’s in thediscussion of last year and Smerdis of Tlön’s of this discussion. The article is the opposite of pompous, ego-enhancing or elitist, it's fun, it's a large project with many voices working towards a common goal in relative harmony for a long period of time, it's what people enjoy finding and musing over in an encyclopedia (especially younger wiki surfers), it's still actively updated and linked to, it's useful and it's harmless---all the things that are wonderful about Wikipedia as a project. Perhaps the name can be changed and the languages divided into sub-groups to keep the size manageable?Pia22:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no sources. Also seems like a possibleWP:HOAX violation:this article about "Rivera's Law" found on google implements more bans on American travel to Cuba. Is it just a coincidence that this article about "Rivera's Law" is about Communism? --Daniel Olsen03:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. "Deal's Gone Bad is sure to please, and is now proud to introduce vocalist Todd Hembrook (formerly of Heavy Step)." The band is obviously trying to promote itself.Worthlessboy142003:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep This isn't an essay, it's an article. Though it has some OR to it, I think it just needs cleanup as opposed to a nuking. There are obviously commentators on the game of snooker, why not have an article about the topic? --Daniel Olsen03:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are not any other sports with their own commentary pages. This info could easily be transplanted to the respective announcers, who all have their own articles.Renosecond03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there sources upon which such an article can be based? Please point to some. The article does not, and the (sole) author onTalk:Snooker commentary says that this article was constructed "according to memory and discussions with people I have met" (i.e. is the author's and the author's acquaintainces' own novel synthesis and anlysis of snooker commentary) and "is not something that can be easily looked up" (i.e. is difficult, if not outright impossible, for editors and readers to verify). In other words: By the author's own admission this is unverifiable and original research.Uncle G08:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but your personally vouching for the authenticity is meaningless (as my personally vouching for it would be as well). Without sources, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia.--Isotope2315:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I feel this vote should be deleted or discounted severely as it just states opinion about the article, not if it should be kept.Renosecond23:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi, author here. Snooker commentary is a world unto its own, and it does have these patterns to it thatcould not be easily incorporated into any other articles. I have been open in my admission about the citation problem, readily incorporating the[citation needed] function wherever I feel my own version on things in unacceptable for this encyclopedia. I would love to be able to cite everything but I can't, surely you can see how this is difficult to do. I would like to hear the opinions of a few snooker fans who can vouch for most of this information, since this is the only way to cite it to my knowledge. I would suggest the article be kept, but with some infoboxes warning about OR etc., leaving it open for others to suggest citations. I have recognized this as the main problem with it. If this thread[11] goes any way towards convincing any of you that this information is true, if only tenuously verifiable, then great. It's the best thing I could find on the web, but I appreciate it's still not great as a reference source. I'm not going to argue any further, if you feel the need to delete it it would be a shame from my perspective, but I do understand that it doesn't meet certain criteria, and will probably never make it onto the Main Page as a featured article!Kris14:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, having an article like this is what a personal webpages is for. WP is not the place for such things, and your vote should be discarded.Renosecond23:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, right... OR infoboxes are a temporary notice while sources are found. Anything that cannot be sourced should be removed, not left in an article indefinitely with OR or citation tags. In this case, removing the original research would leave the article blank. Just tagging this as OR is not a solution.--Isotope2315:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article may contain OR but it should be tagged and references should be dug up, I don't think it would be too difficult considering the number of linked-to bios. Anything that can't be referenced should be axed though, article definately needs some trimmingCanadian-Bacontce19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost completely OR, author admits that references are unlikely to be found. No objection to it being recreated with references, but the current article clearly isn't going to improve.Yomanganitalk01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a great article, it gives a real insight into snooker commentary, and people who are voting for deletion obviously just don't follow the game of snooker. Everything in it is true. Yes, it lacks citations, and yes, it is in need of input from more NPOV Wikipedians, but this can be worked on over time, I don't think it would be wise to just delete the whole thing. I understand why people voting for deletion are doing so, but as a snooker fan I would urge you not to. You make me laugh Renosecond, putting this article up for deletion. Not the first article deletion debate we've been in is it? I like what you said about Lancsalot's vote:"Personally, I feel that this vote should be deleted ……… as it just statesopinion…" And you have some gall telling the author himself he has no right to an opinion regarding keeping the article. There's no wonder you've been banned from Wikipedia in the past, I enjoyed the little tantrum you threw about it as well. It seemed you didn't quit after all – we wouldn't be one to get a bit hot-headed when someone doesn't agree with us would we? Then say things in the heat of the moment? Anyway, all I can say is if this article gets deleted it'd be a real shame.Pre1twa13:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, I quite like Snooker, but unsourced, uncited articles based on admitted original research just don't have any place on Wikipedia, no matter how interesting they may be.--Isotope2315:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pre1twa has been a long time viewer of wikipedia and has only had the need to sign up and create an account in response to a 'certain person's' 'delete happy' views on a subject that is of great interest to him.Pre1twa14:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much as I appreciate your staunch supportPre1twa, I think the best thing you can bring to this "forum" is silence, cheers mate. I'm enjoying this debate and agree with most of you, be it for or against the article. You're all intelligent people, but I don't agree with the encouragement of disallowing opinions, that would perhaps belie the very reason this page exists. So please stop suggesting such things Renosecond. The ultimate root of everything we as a race perceive as knowledge is opinion, we just trust others more than others. I will stand by my aboveKeep stance, but likewise won't complain if a delete was arrived at, because in the cold light of Wikipedia rules, all deletists are probably correct. I said I wouldn't argue my case any more — and I'm not, I just don't want an inherent bias to stem from disregarding all the people who votefor the article.Kris03:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not "delete happy", but I do feel that WP needs a level of quality and consistency. This article was something I stumbled upon and I did not feel that it met the criteria for an article here. Just because an article may be interesting does not mean it should be included. And I hope that some of the keep votes be heavily discounted, as they are not valid reasons to keep an article and some are made in poor faith.Renosecond19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An article about a wiki/blog software that was deleted under Prod but restored per request by the main editor (who also seems to be the sotware creator).217 unique Google hits, one news hit on Google news, zero on Newsbank. Procedural listing fromWP:DRV, so I'll leave it to the community to decide. ~trialsanderrors03:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the substantive edits to this page appear to have been made by the program's author. I believe that the autobiographical nature of the page works against it. If you or your software are appropriate for an encyclopedia article, it's always good advice to be patient and let someone else write the article. In the meantime, no evidence has been presented that this software meets any of our recommended inclusion standards.Delete.Rossami(talk)12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As you said, page was created and edited by me. As i see, wikepage is not seemed to be important, and not meets any Wikipedia inclusion standarts, it's logical to be deleted. But if you look up any other software,- for example wiki softwares like Wikepage -scWiki,PukiWiki,CitiWiki ...etc... and maybe other many wikis, and of course many blog softwares, must be deleted. I can list hundreds of web based softwares which can not to be seemed important. Lastly, I want to thank you for your peer review process and chance to talk.Sblisesivdin(talk) 20:59, 31 August 2006 (GMT+2)
Comment We have something like 1.3 million articles as of now, and all deletion is done by hand. There are many, many articles that slip through the cracks simply because nobody detects them. If you think those articles describe non-notable software you can help and tag them for deletion. This is not malice against your program, just simply a slow process. ~trialsanderrors18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO, many people think that Wikipedia is a strong reference base because of its 1.3 million articles. I like to see information about CitiWiki. Because maybe you don't need wiki softwares, but any information about CitiWiki concerns me. If wikepage.org hasan Alexa ranking of 236,056 (in top %2 of Alexa list) it means, it has a potential developer and user base. With a strict deletion policy, Wikipedia can not be Wikipedia as many people know and use. It's not a top %2 thing, any information that people search is important. And this can not be foresighted by hand, it's a statistical thing. Thanks.Sblisesivdin(talk) 21:44, 31 August 2006 (GMT+2)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete listicrufts. A list of a university's athletics union would appear to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Most universities have one and this does not appear to assetr notability either.Ohconfucius03:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Delete This list is lacking contextually, there is no real assertion of importance, and does not merit it's own article. If it was important enough to the University, which I doubt, it could be listed on that page.Yanksox15:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Wikipedia's not a how-to guide. I remember there was a professional opinion (in Atlantic Monthly perhaps? It's archived and not accessible anymore I think.) that if the Haiku form (which isn't just about the 5-7-5 stance) were to be ported to English, it would end up being something like 2-3-2.ColourBurst03:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nomination. My high school sends productions to the Edinburgh Fringe. It's a nice honor, but nowhere near enough of an achievement to justify notability. -Elmer Clark21:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Do not AfD articles which are still in theWP:PROD process. I don't thinkUser:218.103.131.12's removal of the PROD tag constituted "contesting" it, since he blanked the whole article, so it was still a valid PROD candidate. Only if the tag is removed or the PROD fails should the article be brought here. -Elmer Clark04:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
proposed deletion of non notable student group perWP:ORG. Certainly not notable outside of the University. Only one commercial release mentioned, scheduled for release this Christmas.Ohconfucius03:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Do not Delete Wildthing61476, obviously not every term needs it's own page, but this one is extremely common, and most likely should be kept 19:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added by151.213.230.28 (talk •contribs)—151.213.230.28 (talk) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete This isnt even a neologism. It actually means what the phrase implies. And it isnt remotely close to being notable, even though it is a common phrase in WoW.Resolute02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete pretty much an advertisement, albeit not quite the type we're used to getting. If this guy's campaign starts getting some media attention then it'll be noteworthy enough for an article, but the article indicates no such thing, so for now, failsWP:NN andWP:BIO. -Elmer Clark04:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No reason to delete: It's the pure truth. Some facts have been decided to be kept secret until recently (due to contracts) but Nelson Kagan and his spouse and the Colombian friends have decided to make it more public. The eBay auction will go off in a few days. Mark it on your calender.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMrbutter (talk •contribs)
It's on BJAODN now ... is that good enough?Daniel Case
...wow, somehow I've had a completely wrong understanding of what consitutes patent nonsense here. Thanks for pointing that out...how foolish of me. -Elmer Clark21:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
please. Gentlemen you must all settle down. I assure you that the immortality information is not a joke. If you still do not believe us rest assured it will come up on ebay and I will link you. Currently we are working with our lawyers to make sure everyone involved in past contracts is delt accordingly. Please settle down. Our lawyers dont want us to give out to much information at this point in time but for the time being you can expect to see one of many ebay auctions to go live in around 2 weeks.
More Information will become available in the coming days about Nelson Kagan + his friends. Of course all information must go through many people before we offer it to the public. About him teaching at the univeristy of sao paulo, this is correct.
Delete Poorly written, doesn't establish notability. The subject writes extensively about electrical distribution systems, beyond that nothing. WP is not a crystal ball, and if he does something in the future (and I suspect discovering the secret to immoratality just might qualify) then that will be the appropriate time to write an article about him.Seaphoto20:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Has been through anAFD before where the result was Delete as his only claim to notability was attempting to break the record. But now it appears as though the individual has finally broken the record. Was tagged as a speedy but I felt it deserved an AFD as it also is a DYK candidate. Just listing hereNo opinion from me.Srikeit(Talk |Email)04:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appeared on theToday Show and received "extensive media attention," clearly notable. Perhaps finally making it onto Wikipedia will make up for having wasted his childhood memorizing that... -Elmer Clark04:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the Guinness Book of World Records. The media shouldn't just decide notability, the thing should--if every media article were on wikipedia, it'd be crazy and messy.-Kmaguir106:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was a requested articleWikipedia:Requested_articles/Mathematics#Geometry. He was on national TV and has substantial exposure in the international press. In response to Kmaguir1, holding a national record is fairly significant. We have articles, for example, on sprinters who hold US but not world records. Agoogle search returns 863 results, including numerous news articles. Agoogle search for a common misspelling of his name "gaurav rajav" returns 1140 results. These results include articles from the AP, Roanoke Times, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Washington Times, Fox News, the USA Today, the Indo-Asian News Service, and dozens of blogs. This news coverage, is not a one time deal, and covers at least 3 of his recitations, with the most extensive covering his failed March 14, 2006 and succesful June attempts. So much press must, in my opinion, establish notability.Forever Old14:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is there any way that I could get access to the original article mentioned in the first AfD to see if it contains any information I left out?Forever Old14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the article request as part of a general removal of extant pages from the Math sub-page for Requested articles.GRBerry16:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As written currently, the article is so poorly written and contains so little of value as to be useless. Unless someone adds significantly to it before AFD closes, I think the right answer is toDelete.Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A disputed PROD. Article has no sources, no editors seem capable of providing them (Google turns up little to nothing, for example), and even were it verifiable and sourced and not a hoax or something, I'm not sure it would be notable. --maru (talk) contribs04:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Resubmit With More Detail This article does not have enough contextual detail to even really qualify as a stub. I recommend deletion, and leave a note on the author's talk page encouraging them to flesh the page out with more details and resubmit it. --dtony05:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it appears to either be fake, or so unnotable that it is untracable unless you actually physicaly go to the place.—The precedingunsigned comment was added byTheKhakinator (talk •contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The only hits the name gets are retreads of this article, and "richie borkan" doesn't get much either. His contributions seem to be rather small at best.Renosecond03:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
delete non notable actor, who starred in two obscure films which are not notable outside theMormon community. "Jaelen Petrie" scores 7 unique Ghits out of 26 hits. His most recent film 'Picadilly cowboy' was only released on August 12 of this year, the vast majority of whose 133 unique Ghits (out of 548 Ghits) are for imdb and its mirrors. It appears on some blogs and lists, no evidencce of reviews. Handcart, his previous effort, 'Handcart' ranks amongst the 70 thousandth in DVD sales ($0 box office gross per Amazon.Ohconfucius05:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, seems to me that this is a legitimate article. I've heard about this company twice on the radio, and was present at Erotica-LA for the giveaway and as such I thought it would be a useful addition to Wikipedia. In full disclosure I am a user of the website and have contributed to several women on the website. I considered adding this article before, but it wasn't until the website was featured on the BBC story (cited in the article) that I felt it was worthy of Wikipedia's standards.Jahgok22:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To me, it's dependent on one's personal definition of "non-trivial" mentions perWP:RS andWP:WEB, about the site itself and not just the topics of breast enhancement, cyberbegging, etc. The blurb about the BBC Three show doesn't mention the site at all, just the breast enhancement market in general, and there's no indication (without watching it or reading a transcript) that it's mentioned in a more than passing fashion on the program itself. Likewise, the Houston Press article is more about cyberbegging in general, and mentions the site in a vague "here are some sites we found" context rather than truly being "about" it. The AVN thing is also just an ad for some promotion that mentions the site in a context of a giveaway. I can't speak to the reliability of Vyuz as a news source, however. Of course, other editors' opinions may vary, so I welcome their input as well, in terms of possibly changing my recommendation. --Kinut/c16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for clearing up your POV Kinu. I'm thinking that perhapsthis audio clip fromThe Adam Carolla Show may offer some extra evidence as to the legitimacy of the article. His show is syndicated in 11 markets and is part of CBS Radio. No small potatoes! :)Jahgok02:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did you even look at the references? They havenothing to do with the article's subject, as mentioned above. --Kinut/c01:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned above, I have a user account on the MyFreeImplants website, and I can attest to the fact that the BBC show mentioned the website in the TV program. The program aired yesterday (Tuesday, August 29, 2006) and there was a rush of new female signups on the website, probably a good 90 new girls all from the UK who saw the show.Jahgok03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition, although the BBC website doesn't specifically mention the website by name, here is the reference to it:
Laura Taylor has wanted a boob job ever since she was 14. She's so desperate to change her breasts she’s logged on to an innovative website that allows men to donate money to women to help them fund a boob job.
It is my opinion this is an obvious reference to MyFreeImplants. There are no other websites like this to my knowledge.Jahgok03:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately, a "possible" reference such as the one you mention doesn't count as areliable source, in my opinion. PerWP:WEB, the evidence must be non-trivial (i.e., actually and incontrovertiblyabout the site, most definitely by name), which in this case, it doesn't seem to be withoutadding one's own opinion. --Kinut/c05:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,Kinut/c05:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a show of good faith, I've relisted this discussion to determine what other editors think, based on the information presented above. --Kinut/c05:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It goes over things well, and plastic surgery is notable, especially breast implants, which are really their own cottage industry. It is advertisement-esque, but it's not badly written for an AfD article, and I'll give it a chance. For now.-Kmaguir106:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Alexa gives a ranking around 122,000 for the site, and the average traffic has dropped around 50% in the last 3 months. I think this got some media notice, but is now rapidly fading away.Brianyoumans06:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think you will see this rebound upon the next Alexa update. Last night August 30, 2006Jay Leno mentioned the website during his monologue onThe Tonight Show and I've sent an email to the site owner who confirms this, I am still looking for a transcript or video of the show for proof.Jahgok05:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite references, Alexa rankings and low Google hits indicate this was a very low-profile fad which never made it into the public consciousness. -Elmer Clark21:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So where is the wiki page that outlines the minimum requirements for Alexa and Google rankings? Is there a quantitative value that can be derived from using these servics that then corresponds to a thumbs-up or thumbs-down for a wiki inclusion? And why are those two companies chosen as the barometer? Or is is mearly a persons opinion based on those services? One would easily assume that a website with poor search engine optimization would be penalized on wikipedia! And not based purely on the facts realted to said website, but based on the skill level of the web developer for the website.Jahgok17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The video fromThe Tonight Show withJay Leno is now available oniTunes and a clip that mentions the topic of this article isavailable on Google Video. Jay doesn't specifically mention the name of the website, but there is only one Los Angeles based website that gives away free breast implants in this manner, so the reference is obviously in regards to MyFreeImplants.Jahgok16:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A brief, 15-second mention on a Leno monologue, which doesn't even mention the site name, and isn't really even about the site but a tongue-in-cheek reference (to paraphrase) to lending a helping hand or two, hardly seems to satisfyWP:RS. --Kinut/c01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasdelete, per Rebecca. The notability of this person is borderline. Normally, in a borderline case I would favor keeping the hard work of those who wrote the article but in this case, when the subject has requested its deletion, I really don't think we have a choice, and must delete.Mangojuicetalk15:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN. Clear failure ofWP:BIO – the subject has written one book which is not particularly successful and hasblogs (but does not write print articles) for two Australian newspapers.mgekelly05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: theprevious discussion was inconclusive, and did not result in a keep. Moreover,WP:BIO doesn't simply say a book must be 'independently reviewed', but stipulates 'multiple independent reviews' – doesLuv'n'txt have such? Links?mgekelly05:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there have also been ongoingWP:BLP issues with this article, requiring it to be semiprotected twice before, and if I recall rightly, the author herself once requested the article be deleted. I really see no benefit in keeping this around.Rebecca06:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable as either an author, blogger or journalist. Just not enough of an impact and only one relatively unknown book. -Peripitus(Talk)12:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - 'Sam and the City' is a well-known part of the Sydney Morning Herald website. It's there every weekday and gets hundreds of contributions - it's not an independent blog but part of the Herald's website. I don't think lack of writing for print media should be something that excludes people - if you write for online media and work for a notable enough source then surely that should establish some sort of notability? There are a lot of SMH journos and contributors that have WP entries - why can't she? (JROBBO05:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I have a suggestion - why not merge something on "Sam and the City" into the SMH article as part of its online content? (JROBBO05:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You suggest wrong. The third criterion of that site states that if "the content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster", then it is notable. This is the case, as the Herald is a well-known online newspaper, etc. (JROBBO05:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
No, you are wrong. The very criterion you quote says that to meet WP:WEB the website in question must be distributed on a well known website independent of the creators. smh.com.au is well known, but not independent of Sam and the City, which is part of Farifax's blog stable, created specfically for the smh and Age websites. The smh website is notable, Sam and the City is not.mgekelly06:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Undoubtedly she's written a fair bit, both on her SMH blog and elsewhere on the web. Writing stuff doesn't make you notable though - notability comes whenother people write about you. A look over her website reveals multiple independant reviews of her book (by both Fairfax and News Ltd papers, and other media), which seems to fit the bill of "other people writing about you". The references in the article could be cleaned up though. --Mako06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the above comments by mgekelly, the article is basically a reproduction of publicity material and adds no critique or outside information to its substance. --Adamnb20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the claim to notability is borderline at best and there are ongoing BLP issues. There is very little to be gained from keeping this article around.Rebecca06:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BLP stands for biographies of living persons. People keep vandalising this article for some reason, and I know for a fact that it has caused the subject of the article distress. With such a borderline claim to notability, this for me throws it right over the edge into deletion territory.Rebecca13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak delete.[Check Google hits]. About 3,300 or so, most of which mirror this article but some do not. Here'sWordSpy with one other source besides Moira Gunn. It's real, but it just isn't in wide use, and I think that's because the Internet is no longer such a new technology and its limitations are well known. I doubt it will elicit a glimmer of recognition in ten years, let alone one.Daniel Case18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems the very definition of aprotoneologism. Funny though to say the popularity of a phrase about believing in things because they are on the internet is proved because it is on the internet.Scarykitty09:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A page about a forum that barely establishes its notability, not to mention is barely sourcable. I mean no offense to the people at the Not Cool Club, but I don't think this is worthy of a Wikipedia article. —this is messedrocker(talk)05:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not unique or notable enough to be anything more than just one of many internet forums. "Recurring" and "notable" threads sections have nothing new or interesting about them. Seems to be merely a promotional tool.Tx1777715:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree this page is not entirely sourced yet, it is also a work in progress and is not near complete. And no, it's not a promotional tool, it's an attempt by members of a small forum website to get the history of a place they frequent written down.SpillWaterLikeLove16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are more than welcome to nominate it yourself, but please note that it might be considered aWP:POINT violation. That and I don't think many other editors would agree with your assessment. --Kinut/c05:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above, but the Not Cool Club is not trying to promote itself. It may not be notable to the people who are not members but to the people involved in the NCC its a big deal. Why not let the Not Cool Club have a page? Its not even near completion yet, lets just give it a chance. YoungHopelessLoser169.203.255.19422:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen theWP:WEB article (this was my first time creating a page on Wikipedia), and after reading the line "Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents will also be either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted", I agree that perhaps Wikipedia is not the best place for this article - this might be more of the realm ofEncyclopedia Dramatica.SpillWaterLikeLove17:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article writes more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. Also is written from 1st person (from bopo's person), which strikes me as a possible copyright violation. This article was originally a {{prod}}. ButUser:bopobopo removed it. Thanks!Deon555talkReview06:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"So what is a bopo card I hear some of you ask?" Um... no, we didn't ask.Delete per Brianyoumans - blatant advertising.Zetawoof(ζ)07:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not Notable phrase; I get about 750 ghits for it, including of course hits for this article. There are several suggestions on the talk page that it be deleted or merged. I shall dare the wrath of the Steve Jobs junkies and attempt to slay this article.Brianyoumans06:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shows no use of the phrase outside Steve Jobs and Mac-blogs. A google search could also not reveal any mainstream adoption of the phrase or even any mention of the phrase by anyone other than Mac enthusiasts.Canadian-Bacontce07:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Non-notable player at the lowest minor-league level, played for a college not exactly known for their baseball program. Thousands of players at this level, most of whom will never advance.Fan-196713:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes a claim that he is playing for the Kansas City Royals. According to the MLB site, the active, 40-man, and depth charts for KC do not show an Omar Pena which would seem to indicate he is still in the minor league system.
Delete According tobasbeballcube.com he played 25 games in single A for KC this year. He has never played above this level at any time during his career and therefore is currently not notable like his brotherCarlos Pena. Hope he makes it though, but he has a long tough road ahead of him.DrunkenSmurf14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think anyone with MLB experience is notable enough for an article, but class A players are not, unless they were a first-round pick, prospect with a lot of media attention, had noteworthy achievements in college, etc, none of which seem to apply here. -Elmer Clark21:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This website is non-notable. Google shows 951 pages that link to the site, with roughly half of those links coming from the same site.f(x)=ax2+bx+c06:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
His claiming is 'nn', plus nothing here is sourced. A google search, because of the commonness of the name, was inconclusiveKmaguir106:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He appears to be completely obscure, from my attempts to Google "Terry Daly" and "masculism". Apparently there is archived email somewhere in which he claims to have been the first person to use the term. Wheee. Out!!!--Brianyoumans07:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Inconclusive. While he would probably not meet notability were he a disc jockey in the US, he is an on-air personality on BBC's Radio One. My understanding is that this is an extremely popular, widely-distributed station (seeBBC Radio 1, and in fact one of the few official broadcast outlets in the United Kingdom. By UK standards, he could very well be not only notable, but a celebrity. I'd like to hear from some of our colleagues over there--is he notable? --Pagana08:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As far as a quick search of google shows, this guy is legit. I get 45,000+ hits. No doubt a lot of these may not refer to the same man, but the fact that he does indeed appear to be a DJ on the BBC makes it a speedy keep and a rather daft nomonation for AfD. Please research a little more before nominating - or else prove me wrong.Marcus2215:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think you're probably right about this being a keep now. I must say though that the article at present does a pretty awful job of asserting the guy's notability, so I think I should be forgiven for this. I'm from England originally, so I realise that Radio 1 is a significant radio station, but in my day the presenter of the Rock Show was never anyone notable. Google hits for such a common name are meaningless too – I sat behind a Mike Davies in school.mgekelly15:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Kelly, I certainly don't think you need to be "forgiven" for AfDing this. You should be thanked for taking the time to raise the issue, which is how it's supposed to be done. Also, you're quite right that this isn't exactly a sterling example of writing. I think Marcus22 might want to step back a bit from calling this AfD "daft". There's certainly no reason for you to be on the defensive here. --Pagana16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment er.. actually I don't want to step back from calling this AfD a "daft" one. For a start, 'daft' is hardly a strong word to use, but more than that, if everyone nominates an Afd without checking it out a little first, how is that going to make Wikipedia look when, as will happen, far more famous names are AfD'd? I'd hazard the word daft... Oh and as the nom has withdrawn, should this not now be speedily kept?Marcus2216:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't withdraw my nom, otherwise I would have said so. I was thinking out loud – admittedly that's probably also daft behaviour. Moreover, this isn't an issue of me not knowing the facts, OK? I'm English, I know what Radio 1 is, that's not the issue. It didn't occur to me that Radio One DJs were notable by dint of that status alone, which seems to be what you're arguing, not implausibly, which is what I was trying to say: hey, that's a good point, I didn't think of that.mgekelly13:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Fellow BBC on-air personalities such asScott Mills,Trevor Nelson,Edith Bowman,Chris Moyles andJo Whiley all have their own articles, so there is a precedent for BBC hosts, I suppose. But I'm not convinced that simply being an on-air employee for the BBC should automatically make one notable. Not all DJs from even the most popular U.S. stations get articles.wikipediatrix00:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But on this matter the US and the UK are not comparable. Believe me, a BBC Radio 1 DJ is notable. It's as simple as that. There is absolutely no question about it. I am very surprised to see this AfD still standing. Are all the admins. on holiday?Marcus2210:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article says nothing to assert notability.Marcus22 says:Believe me, a BBC Radio 1 DJ is notable. It's as simple as that. There is absolutely no question about it. Sorry, but faith-based assertions don't sway me. I hereby raise that very question. I'm willing to believe you and change my vote; nowpersuade me that I should believe you. (You'll have to hurry, as soon I'm heading off on internet-free vacation.) Certainly my own experiences of flicking the frequency dial of a newly rented car in the Youkay in desperate search of something that isn't inane chitchat or inane muzak (entertainingly described examplehere) doesn't suggest that Radio 1 DJs are the slightest bit noteworthy (though I realize that there have been occasional and justly celebratedcounterexamples). --Hoary02:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unlike you to be so unobservant Hoary. For a start, what about the 45,000+ google hits? As fas as I can see - and I'm not going to go through all 45,000+ of them (!) - the greater part of these refer to this Mike Davies. Not convincing enough? Well, I'm rather surprised.
Now how about my comment thatBelieve me, a BBC Radio 1 DJ is notable. etc...' - I'm guessing you were either not quite awake when you said that 'faith based assertions' etc.. or, much more likely, you just don't know the situation via a viz Radio 1 in the UK. Well, I'm afraid I can't prove anything to you or anyone else about how major a player Radio 1 is but - and so you'll just have to believe me (or do a little research!) - but it's a little like ABC or CNN or whoever else is the main media organisation in the US. This guy has a potential listening audience of 55,000,000. He's not some 2bit DJ on a backwoods station.Marcus2208:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No original research. This page has no sources or links what so ever and the warning template has been up for over a week. No one seems interested in maintaining or fixing this article including its creator.NeoFreak07:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a week is not a long time - I've worked on articles with tags on for a year. The battle is clearly real. Covered inMarines in the Garden of Eden: The Battle for An Nasiriyah - ISBN 0425209881 and appears as notable as any other battle in the warPeripitus(Talk)11:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator withdraws nomination, no one argues for deletion is a criterion for aSpeedy Keep, if you wish to argue for it, yes.WilyD15:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasredirect. There were only a couple of lines in the article; apart from BBDO consulting having 150 employees, everything was already in the other article. Merging from here is up to any interested editors.Mangojuicetalk15:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because at least to me, it seems that this is completely POV; biased towards the company. Possibly written by someone that works there? --AndreniW19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any biased information here, net research verifies all data given. Check out the classical McKinsey & BCG articles, they seem to give the same kind of data.— Precedingunsigned comment added by84.57.183.63 (talk •contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non-notable web comic; Alexa doesn't seem to have any traffic information and no linking sites; not many relevant GHits with a stray pet care center taking top GHit; just not able to see how this meetsWP:WEBju66l3r08:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION!
If you came here because you were asked to come here in a forum or web-comic, please note thatthis is not a vote, but rather adiscussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We havepolicies and guidelines to help us decide this, anddeletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (orsocks).
You can participate and give your opinion. Pleasesign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Happy editing! Comments made by suspectedsingle purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.
KEEP IT Leave whiskerville alone. This comic has been around for 4+ years now, and does have a following. Most Topics on Wiki aren't Notable....Take Keyra Augustina for example. Wiki is suppose to be about sharing EVERYTHING, not about censoring something you don't know anything about. VIVA LA WHISKERVILLE! --- MIKE—The precedingunsigned comment was added by24.6.59.197 (talk •contribs) .
Whiskerville the webcomic is informally involved with the stray pet center mentioned above.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by152.131.12.128 (talk •contribs) .
Keep I've run across whiskerville a couple times. I'm not sure why it's not showing on Alexa, I found it linked from a couple places I frequent. Maybe it's just the company I keep though. At a minimum, whiskerville has less relevance to scrooge mcduck than it does to this comic. I can't even find that reference through Google until page 4 and that reference is in German. --PaulM03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IT! What kind of encyclopedia excludes a subject just because someone hasn't heard of the subject yet? How else can knowledge be shared?-Sheena Gabbert—The precedingunsigned comment was added byDirtgirl1104 (talk •contribs) .
Wiki says: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]...........Well Whiskerville is distributed online via a few places. One is Whiskerville.com obviously, two is Testcase.net and three is Jokethemonkey.com (Alexa Ranking of 541,246 and 10K in pageviews a day). So on any given week Whiskerville is seen by over 10000 people on the internet. Does that work? Or am I stretching it? And just so you know, I am not the guy who does whiskerville...I'm just a fan.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by24.6.59.197 (talk •contribs) .
KEEP IT! This is the funniest strip I've ever seen. Better than alot of the syndicated comics you seen in papers. I say keep it.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by69.94.129.172 (talk •contribs) .
Comment: Two things I'd like to comment on are that this is not a vote, but a discussion and relatedly, the discussion needs to apply to the notability (and therefore appropriateness) of having Whiskerville as an article. Being a great web comic or even being one of many that might need to be removed for lack of notability is not an argument for keeping it. The most recent comment above from 24.6.59.197 is much better at stating a case for keeping the article (although just because jokethemonkey.com gets 10k views doesn't mean they're all looking at Whiskerville). If the article is kept, it needs to do a better job at establishing this supposed notability. There are no links to any press coverage, awards, or any other reason to think that Whiskerville is just a slightly web-syndicated personal website (and given the ease of syndication on the web, that's hardly expansive viewership).ju66l3r16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Whiskerville page on Wiki says this "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. " That means we have every right to share our thoughts on this matter. Whether it be by a comic pointing us here or someone suggesting we come here. This is a free site, and we have every right to voice our opinions. Also Whiskerville is published in an Oregon Newspaper. If you delete Whiskerville from Wiki then I DEMAND that you guys flag all other Webcomics that aren't in print.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by24.6.59.197 (talk •contribs) .
Look, that's exactly what I'm trying to point out to you, except just sharing your feelings doesn't help an administrator make a decision to keep the article or not. Your feelings need to be backed up with solid proof of notability as it relates to the rules of Wikipedia which have been quoted a few times now (WP:WEB,WP:V are two examples). If you'd like to make it a goal to have all webcomics not even as notable as Whiskerville removed, then I would applaud your effort if it's deemed that this webcomic should be deleted. I will AfD those articles when I come to them, too. I didn't hunt out Whiskerville or webcomics, I AfD what I see that meets what I think are the criteria when I happen to see them.ju66l3r19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: GET OFF OF YOUR HIGH HORSES YOU BUNCH OF EGOMANICS! THIS IS SUPPOSE TO BE A PLACE WERE PEOPLE CAN ADD TO THE WORLD...ALL YOU PEOPLE "SELF-PROMOTE" YOUR AGENDAS ON HERE...LEAVE WHISKERVILLE ALONE!—The precedingunsigned comment was added by24.6.59.197 (talk •contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fancruft, violation ofcharacters in fiction. Five of six editors agreed to merge and all info was merged into two other articles. Single editor refuses to accept merge and continues to revert merge. All good info already merged and this page is ready for deletion.NeoFreak09:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If what the article says is true, then Frasheri is a notable ski-jumper, but the article lacks sources and so far, I have not succeeded inverifying the truthfulness of the article with Google.Szoltys1990 has created all the versions of this article and was asked to source it. The reference providedhere is to a "Polish book", which does not say much. Unless a specific and reliable source can be found, I think this article needs to be deleted.Sjakkalle(Check!)09:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified. The author is Norwegian and active on no.wiki but it's currently on AfD thereno.wikiAfD. N.B. Abdyl Frasheri was a 19th century Albanian activist - there's a street named after him in Tirana.Dlyons493Talk20:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Don't delete - Provides an accurate, concise description of a respected webcomic. Author tours conventions with the authors of Mac Hall, 8-bit Theatre, and CTR-ALT-DEL - thus at least three respected authors in the webcomic community believe him to be a peer. This article is a stub, but should be given time to grow. I wrote about half the article, and am in no way affiliated with Comedity. I just was looking through Wikipedia looking for information on some webcomics, came across this one up for deletion, and added to it so that a useful resource wouldn't be deleted.Magus19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Weren't there specific notability guidelines for webcomics? This meets the 100 comics limit and has certainly been around for long enough. --Kizor08:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meetWP:WEB guideline orWP:V policy. Yes, some people once floated the idea that Wikipedia ought to throw out all our content policies about "reliable sources" and "no original research" and instead we should write encyclopedia articles about every web comic that manages to reach the arbitrary milestone of 100 comics. Then we realized that was a bad idea because 1) It's not that noteworthy that somebody managed to draw five comics a week for two and a half months, 2) Nobody would ever consider writing about every blog with 100 posts or every flickr account with 100 photos or every wikipedia editor who writes 100 encyclopedia articles, and 3) If no third party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are writing about those 100 comics, then we really shouldn't (and can't) write about them either. We're an encyclopedia,WP:NOT an internet directory. --Dragonfiend03:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the 100 comic limit was one ofseveral criteria intended to work together, instead of a single arbitrary milestone. I've added some links to the statements about community activity (those seem to hold up under observation) and other than those every fact in the article is readily observable in the comic or its cast page.Keep. -Kizor07:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's on my watchlist which means it's not notable. Having done guest strips for others is nothing, turning up to conventions means absolutely nothing. -Hahnchen00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: I'm not entirely clear on what this even is. Maybe a veiled attack page? Maybe a spam page? None of the supposed references offer any clue. The title is apparently wrong (s/b "Insane Clown Posse's stance..."?}. I was expecting it to be a book or external article title when I opened it - but no. This should at least be merged in somewhere else. —Wknight94 (talk)11:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep It is there to help people understand when Zantarni is refered to without adequate context clues.MD 5:41 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep True, there is not much information on the site as of yet, but the facts we do have are backed up and constantly updated. 8.36PM 5 September 2006 (EST)— Precedingunsigned comment added by72.224.7.126 (talk •contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Do not delete "Maxim Holod" -> only 165 results, "Max Holod" -> 402 results... but he's better known as "Fractal Structure".. check out thediscography or search google for "Fractal Structure", and see the first page... or push "I'm feeling lucky" and you'll be directed to his official website. Should I make the main page as "Fractal Structure" instead of "Maxim Holod" ?—The precedingunsigned comment was added byUnderestimated (talk •contribs) .
Please readWP:MUSIC which is the applicable guideline on including musicians on Wikipedia. While a Google search for "Fractal Structure" returns3.3 million results, only a handful are for this artist. He just doesn't seem notable yet.Gwernol14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note this user has been blanking this discussion and removing the AfD notice from the article in an attempt to disrupt the deletion process.Gwernol22:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The Fractal Structure search actually returns a mixed bag of ghits. A lot do indeed refer to music. Whilst I dont know enough about it to say how many refer to Max Holod I'm inclined to think that there's not enough out there to satisfyWP:MUSIC but it may need a closer look.Marcus2215:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I took a closer look at the Google results. A search for"fractal structure music" returns 701,000 results, but the vast majority of these are nothing to do with the subject of this article. A more accurate search on"fractal.structure music" gets us down to 31,300 results; again most are about the fractal structure of music, not Max Holod. A search for"fractal structure (max, holod)" only returns 168 Google hits, only 39 of which are in English and even some of these are not about the Max Holod (see, for example[13]). It certainly does not seem like this artist meetsWP:MUSIC.Gwernol15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your "closer look" wasn't close enough imho.. isn't 29,100 results for"Fractal Structure" Trance enough, to understand that this name is relevable enough to have its humble place in Wiki ? Underestimated 02 September 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep -- doesn't seem to vain to me as the tone isn't full of puffery usually found in vanity articles, and notability is both asserted, and verifiable with sources provided in the article. --Whpq13:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD, nominator stated "NN local politician withg copyvio issues" (bio is largely from the local paper). The copyvio issue may be fixable, assuming that other reliable sources can be found to substantiate the details of the mayor of a small town, but perWP:BIO it is highly unlikely that being mayor ofThunder Bay, Ontario is a significant national office which in and of itself confers encyclopaedic notability. For comparison, this town is rather smaller thanReading, Berkshire (where I live). I know one of Reading's former mayors, he is a schoolteacher at my son's primary school. The two roles are of roughly equivalent importance, in my view. The world has many tens of thousands of mayors, most of them worthy and sincere individuals, but only one of them isClint Eastwood, and it's not this one.Just zisGuy you know?12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few points I want to get out:
I've been reading throughWikipedia:Candidates and elections, and theSources section specifically says that local newspapers are an acceptable source of information. I was also very careful to attribute the article, as I did not want to make it seem as if it was plagiarization - I wanted it to be clear that there was a source, and that source was attributed
After reading theInformation to be included section, I see that I haven't really put much of value into this article from a historical perspective - I will fix this up, however I believe that 5 days is too short a time. Can I request that a deletion decision be deferred until 1 month from now, Sept. 30th 2006? By then, if the article hasn't been updated or reached an acceptable level of content, I will tacitly agree to it's deletion
Wayne Thomson = former incumbent mayor. Karen Farbridge = former incumbent mayor. Rob MacIsaac = current incumbent mayor. Lynn Peterson = current incumbent mayor. This line of argument holds no water whatsoever.Bearcat19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was never mayor of Thunder Bay - he ran, and lost (according to the article.) I'm pretty sure every mayor of Thunder Bay is an encyclopaedic topic, but I don't think the same is true of failed candidates.Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage would almost certainly be true of any mayor of a large city (and Thunder Bay is the largest city within about a thousand kilometers) But he lost.WilyD13:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting mix of viewpoints is being shown - on the one hand, it is stated thatThunder Bay is too small a city to really merit much attention (User Talk:JzG above). On the other hand, it's being claimed that the city is a big one and that as a result the mayoral article should be preserved (User Talk:WilyD above). In a multi-contributor environment like Wikipedia, I realize that it's very difficult to apply editorial consistency, however I would refer again to theWikipedia:Candidates and elections page and say that I will attempt to bring this article up to that standard in one month. I'm also not trying to turn this into some sort of contest - it matters not to me who won or lost a given election, but rather that historical background on the election is present for readers to analyze.As far as my own opinion aboutThunder Bay, I lived there for 18 years and it is definitely the largest city within a long range. It's approximately 800 km to any city which is larger than it, and it serves as the nerve centre for Northwestern Ontario (of the population of 250,000 in the region, it contains about 110,000). I believe that it qualifies it as a local 'major city', and the much lower population densities in Canada mean that the major cities are significantly smaller than in the UK.User Talk:Straxus13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not proposed for deletion due to being a stub, it's proposed because the subject does not meet thenotability guidelines, which are a rough and ready guide to who is likely to achieve sufficient external coverage to allow a verifiably neutral biography.Just zisGuy you know?14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being a failed candidate in an election for a mayor whether it be for Thunder Bay or Toronto is not sufficient, unless there's other reasons for notability. --Whpq13:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perWhpq. I can respect the effort the author is putting in, but finishing 4th in an election with barely 3600 votes does not make this individual notable enough for an article.Resolute17:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some further research, and it turns out that mayoral candidate is not the only historically interesting information about this person. It appears that he was both Board Director and Chairman of the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, and he is also currently on the Board of Directors of the Thunder Bay Airport.
Wikipedia precedent has generally permitted articles on people who have beenelected mayors of cities, even small ones, but the same precedent has determined that unelected mayoralcandidates arenot notable enough for WP articles unless the person meetsWP:BIO in other ways. Frankly, nothing here meets WP:BIO. Not running for mayor and losing, not being on the Chamber of Commerce, not being on the board of directors of the airport.Delete.Bearcat19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did I mention that he invented the Internet? ;)
Sounds like I'm not going to win this one - I guess the electrons in this article are going to be recycled into something else. Can't say I didn't try though!User Talk:Straxus21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
English football clubs below level 10 in the football league system are considered not notable per discussion on theFootball WikiProject. An article on an amateur club playing in an amateur league far below that level should thus be deleted. –Elisson•Talk12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, team only formed in 2005,doesn't even play in a regular league won't start playing in a regular league until next month, and it is well outside the English league pyramid. No other claim to notability.Qwghlm13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And still this "not just any other amateur football team" has no claim whatsoever that would make it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. –Elisson•Talk14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a shame to delete an article on an interesting topic- obviously if gay football teams were ten a penny then there would be a case for deletion- but as this is the first I believe, and maybe even the largest- then it should be included.Astrotrain14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are already articles on the topic (for exampleGay Football Supporters Network), and this team wasnot the first gay team, and it does not meet the criteria for inclusion as it is way down the league system. There are not many (if any) teams with only left-footed players out there, but just because we find one such team in an obscure league does not mean we should include it. –Elisson•Talk15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless notability can be demonstrated beyond the fact that they are a gay football team in a minor league. Has the team received significant coverage in mainstream sources? And I don't mean stuff likethis actually written by team members.Stonewall FC have had that sort of coverage, and deserve an article. Good luck to the Blaze - I think what they're doing to break down barriers is admirable, and looks like a lot of fun. But it's not encyclopedic. --OpenToppedBus -Talk to the driver15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, and unlikely ever to make their way up to the Premiership, gay or otherwise. Being gay doesn't make you notable, if it did, there would be millions more entries on Wikipedia than there are now. --Stevefarrell09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete but maybe it should come back soon. No mention in the offline press. One favorable blog review hit Nexis. However, Alexa ranking is about 15,000 and climbing. If they continue their growth, they'll be notable before long.Uucp14:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Suspected hoax;Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Article provides noreliable sources; Google turns up nothing on this person. Author's only contributions are to this article. Prod tag (and all maintenance tags) removed by third-party editor (whose only edit was to that article). I will happily withdraw the nomination if someone can provide citations. --Merope13:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable. Claims to be the home of lots of well-known Internet hip hop artists but fail to mention them. Site only contains a forum which requires registration. No Alexa traffic rankTexMurphy14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result waskeep,Thunder Bay is a significant Canadian city. I know to Americans that 10^5 people doesn't sound impressive at all, but this is Canada, and northern Ontario at that. Thunder Bay's importance inside Canada is comparable to something like (to choose a random medium-sized midwestern town)Cleveland's importance in the US, and one notes by way of precedent thatList of Mayors of Cleveland, Ohio has a whole bunch of bluelinks. ---Deville (Talk)03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes only one claim of notability, being mayor of a reasonable-sized town, but that falls below the level of office which is considered inherently notable perthe notability guideline. Absent any independent claim to notability, this is just one of the myriad local politicians for whom there will never be sufficient interest to ensure ongoing coverage in reliable sources.Just zisGuy you know?14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Central city to Northern Ontario, the current Mayor should have a page. Should be expanded.Clausewitz01
Keep Mayor of an important town is an encyclopaedic topic. Being a stub is not a criterion for deletion, but for expansion.WilyD15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
# Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage No, it basically demands mayors of highly important cities be kept.WilyD03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Municipal politicians are not notable perWP:BIO. TB is not even a big municipality: "According to the 2001 census, there were 109,016 people residing in Thunder Bay", 0.33% of the Canadian population.Ohconfucius03:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of population, Thunder Bay is the hub of activity for that region of Northern Ontario which is not as densely populated. --Whpq11:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out my very poorly worded comment. I didn't mean to say that Thunder Bay as sparsely populated. I meant to compare the population density of Norethern Ontaio, to Southern Ontario. The northern part of the provine is more sparsely populated than the southern part, and Thunder Bay represents a major population and activity centre for a large region. Using population unqualified asUser:Ohconfucius did doesn't properly represent the importance of the city. Once again, thatnks for pointing it out so I can properly express myself. --Whpq12:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I believe if more Wikipedians would look at the matter they would agree that the subject matter is fictional and the source article (of which there is only one) is clearly intended to be a spoof.—Precedingunsigned comment added by67.173.255.139 (talk)20:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result waskeep; although this is completely insane, it is also clearly not a hoax. The sources given by CosmicPenguin make this clear. ---Deville (Talk)03:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completed nomination byUser:216.120.166.5, whose reasoning was: "Hoax website cited." Since that article survived aprevious AfD, it may not be a hoax, but it has not improved since then. The source given is highly dubious. Thus, from me aweak delete unless areliable source is given. --Huon14:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If its a hoax, then it has fooled lots of folks over the years. I have aUncle John's Bathroom Reader from the late 90s that reprintedthis same article the same Outside magazine article cited. A google search for "ferret legging" listed many clones of the Outside article, as well as some legitimate sites that may have been influenced by the article[16]. This article[17] implies that it may have started as a joke, but turned into reality. On the other hand, we have sites like this[18], which doesn't seem to me like it was inspired by the Outside article in any way. I found at least one real competition[19] as well as some blog entries describing the experience (no pictures though). I would have to say that either this is a very well done hoax that has fooled absolutely everybody, or its a real activity. Either way, I think its notable enough to stick around. -CosmicPenguin (Talk)05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you seem to be saying, this article has already appeared in print elsewhere, then this article is a copyright violation and should be deleted even more speedily.wikipediatrix14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poor wording on my part. By article, I mean the Outside magazine article that inspired the wikipedia page (second sentence: "It was first brought to light by Donald Katz, in an article entitled "King of the Ferret Leggers", in the February 1983 issue of Outside magazine."). -CosmicPenguin (Talk)22:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems you have to sayOutside Magazine is some sort of Mad magazine for camping enthusiasts to say this is a hoax. Outside seems to be a perfeclty legitimate magazine. Incidentally, Outside recently republished the story in The Best of Outside: The First 20 Years (Vintage Departures) (Paperback). If Outside magazine is not a hoax, then this article cannot be considered a hoax.Scarykitty06:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article claimed to be from theOutside Magazine, but not on that magazine'sofficial homepage, hardly counts as a reliable source, especially as that very same text is claimedhere to be from 02/92Harper's Magazine. Everything I happened to find via Google seems to beslang dictionaries, pages claiming it to be a joke ([20],[21], note reference to Harper's Magazine), and diverse references to the article cited as a source and its author, Donald Katz. To me, that failsWP:V for a sport, and for a hoax it would need a complete rewrite (and some more authoritative source stating it realyis a hoax). Either way, the current version is not up to the standards required for a Wikipedia articla, and unless we can agree on whether it is a hoax or not, I doubt it can be improved. --Huon16:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Its possible that the Harper Magainze is an adpated version of Katz's story - it was published a decade earlier, and many of the qutoes are identical. That might further the theory that Katz originated the hoax, but you can't deny it has legs = a modern version of theJackalope, perhaps. -CosmicPenguin (Talk)17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Go to Amazon, search on "Reg Mellor", one of the sportsman profiled in the original article. Up will come the book "The Best of Outside: The First Twenty Years." It will invite you to use Amazon's online reader to click on page 145. On page 145 is the story "The King of the Ferret Leggers" by Donald R. Katz.
Comment I found another source in the Book of Alternative Records, which added additional detail about the date and place of the world record. Plus Katz himself published "King of the Ferret Leggers and other True Stories." I added both these to the page. Incidentally, in 2005, someone linked to the Outside story on theferret page. The talk page reflects that people thought it was "ridiculous" ("Anyone who reads that article swill immediately put things into perspective. By comparison it makes "Reefer Madness" look like a true story") and the reference was removed. But with two sources, I'm now convinced it's not a hoax and I believe the article should stay as is.
Weak Delete orWeak Keep butClean Up I don't quite believe the Outside article is a hoax, but it is RIDDLED with gross factual errors-far too many to be the only reference. It describes ferrets as "a shark of the land, a piranha with feet, fur-coated evil, and the only four-legged creature in existence that kills just for kicks" and as having "the jaw musculature of a pit bull." claims that "A baby was killed and eaten in 1978" (despite the fact that ferrets weigh only 2-3 pounds) and that "little is known of the diseases carried by the ferret because veterinarians are afraid to touch them." despite ferrets having a LONG history as labratory animals. Yes ferret legging does get a lot of hits on google but almost all of them point to reprints of the Outside article. One of the non-Outside sources mentioned in a previous comment is even worse: "With claws as sharp as needles, they are also able scamper up walls and across beamed ceilings in pursuit of moths and flies." which is utterly false and seems to confuse ferrets with geckos. If this article is to remain it needs to have a better source. I am convinced that this jackass-stunt really did exist so I would rather see this article improved by having more reliable references than deleted outright, but without more and better sources it is too unverified to stand.JeffStickney18:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches would be deceptive on that because the same article that Katz wrote for Outside appeared later in Harpers and then in Katz' book. This would make that one source appear to be 3 sources. Furthermore almost everything on google that is not a direct reprint of that article derives its information from the article. The Katz article's numerous factual errors do render it unreliable and I do stand by the comment that I made earlier on theFerret talk page that "Anyone who reads that article will immediately put things into perspective. By comparison it makes "Reefer Madness" look like a true story". However I notice that the Wikipedia article now also has a footnote to the book "Gould, Philip J.; Ralf Laue (2004). Book of Alternative Records. Metro Publishing Ltd.. ISBN 1843581264". Not having read it I can't comment on the book's reliability, but book sources are considered as valid as online sources WRT wikipedia policy.JeffStickney00:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the Book of Alternative Records source has information not present in Katz' article, such as the date and place of Reg Mellor's world record. Just because there are errors about the behavior of ferrets from people who observed the sport doesn't invalidate the existence sport/practice. My guess is that the sport has really died out (perhaps with the Reg Mellor generation), but Katz did capture it (even if poorly or hyperbolically, in the eyes of some), as did others and it should stay here.Please note there are now two sources in the articleScarykitty15:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one's disputing that this man put Ferrets in his pants, and no one's disputing that people have written about it. What people are disputing (and rightly so) is whether this makes it a real sport, or at least a notable sport for Wikipedia purposes. Even if real, we don't give articles to every nutty competition conceived by bored miners and lumberjacks. However, I have an idea for a compromise: Katz's book might make a decent article even if the "sport" itself does not.wikipediatrix15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
well... thanks for the sharp and rather unjust decision on your collective parts to vote for the removal of "djdownload.com". If you would kindly take the time to find out a little bit more about DJdownload then you may realise that it is an important part of DJ culture her in the ol' UK, and if you insist on its removal then I suggest that you review and delete "Beatport", Sony Connect, and all the other Online music stores on Wikipedia. Beatport in particular cares to mention (purely for research purposes i'm sure...) the prices of its download on the same wiki article!
Delete perWP:WEB. Hi, Djdownloadadmin. I'm sure your website is very nice and very helpful to those who use it, but by our guidelines (readWP:WEB in particular), it just doesn't merit its own article. These editors (and myself) have researched it (Fan-1967 looked at the Alexa ranking, which is a criterion, the nominator certainly did the same, and on my part, I did a google search and a news search).Srose(talk)18:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable Christian Rock Band, popular at most in their local area (Illinois). One album; article claims that they have toured, but according to their webpage, only in their local area. Fails to meetWP:MUSIC. Also, Vanity page, created byUser:38Acres. Prod and prod2 contested by author.Mangojuicetalk14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Their are plenty of other artist listed on this web site that have similiar, or lesser qualifications then this band. Their is no marketing behind this other than a listing of who the band is. I figured playing shows in IL, WI, MI, IN, IA, MO, and other states would be considered touring to some extent? How do you go about listed about what a legitimate band is then? Google the name and its first up. They are not just some local bar band folks.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by38Acres (talk •contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result waswould have made this a disambiguation page with a link to L. Aravind but someone already did that so I'll maintain the status quo. ---Deville (Talk)03:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a ego page for some person with the name "Aravind". There are millions of people with the same name in India, and if everyone puts their resume in wikipedia,where does it end?—The precedingunsigned comment was added byAkesavan (talk •contribs) .
Delete - This article is too general. If the article is about a specific person, it should use their full name instead of just a first name.Iluvitar21:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be a real person, but I can only find references to him under the name "L. Aravind". I don't know enough about the topic to vote, though.Danny Lilithborne00:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Changed from Delete) The change from Aravind to L. Aravind is better I guess. I would still think that a full name would be better if it was possible though.Iluvitar02:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is a placeholder for this person's resume. There is no mention of a single award received by this "scientist". Is it okay to allow anyone and everyone to post their acheivements in Wikipedia?—The precedingunsigned comment was added byAkesavan (talk •contribs) .
Strong Keep. Giant in biology. PubMed reveals 178 1st and 2nd tier publications includind Nature, Cell, and Science publications. Principal Investigator at NCBI. Search L. Aravind on Google. Some sort of titan in bioinformatics. You will note that I am basing my comments on NOTABILITY not READABILITY. --Antorjal05:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I did a google search for this wrestler, and it didn't come up with any decent searches. Seems to be a lesser wrestler that isn't that known. Wikipedia isn't the place for any wrestler.RobJ198108:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't appear to be a valid nomination as insufficient reason was given. Regardless,keep as the article is completely verifiable.Dan100 (Talk)08:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the British wrestling fans would consider him notable. Just because he's not known in the States doesn't mean he can't be considered notable elsewhere. With that said, at the same time, Google does turn up relatively little about him, so I'm not sure on his notability myself.JamesDuggan22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thoguh that is mainly because of his name bringing up results for the chewing gum... if you try his name plus one of the promotion he works for i.eNBW you can see that its a different story ---Paulley
Weak Delete. Even though I'm not a UK wrestling fan, the gist I get from the article is that he's attained some exposure but not necessarily enough notoriety to warrant an entry YET.Deputy Marshall00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is actually the place for [wrestlers], it's the place for an infinite number of topics. I don't know a thing about English professional wrestling and therefore can't really judge how notable a wrestler he is, however my keep is perDan100's reasoning.Dina16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's actually some discussion atWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling in regards to the notability of wrestlers of various levels that may turn into a larger project. Right now, the suggestion is that unless they've worked for one of the Big Three companies, notability is pretty suspect. But... not sure how that works towards English wrestlers. I'm neutral.Tony Fox(arf!)20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bubblegum is fast becoming one of the biggest names in british Professional wrestling and is working all over the UK and Ireland. He certainly belongs here.
Keep Just because the wrestler is not widely known does not mean his entry is subject to deletion. The article is factual and accurate and should be kept.— Precedingunsigned comment added by72.73.197.183 (talk •contribs) 16:40, 9 September 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a tough one. I voteweak delete, and let me go into why. First of all, wikipedia can't put on its site everyone who commits murders. Poor people commit murders every day, and there's absolutely no mention of it on Wikipedia, but some kid whose parents can afford a video game system, and all of a sudden, there's upper-class white outrage. And that's what the article basically consists of, that outrages, asking us to be outraged,plus the normal criminal set up. Now, there is the 60 Minutes stuff, but this stuff isn't fleshed out. Was it merely mentioned as a lead in to a segment, or was the entire segment based on this one kid? I think there's no way of knowing, because I didn't see the show. There are 1.6 million hits on google on it, but it appears difficult to quantify how many are really this Devin Moore... but again, even if there is a large number of internet hits, who gets on the internet? people who can afford it.-Kmaguir104:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a grey area, but please realise that the incident might be more significant to United States society than a simple murder (as crass as that sounds), as it could be used to justify limitations on civil liberties such as free speech. Honestly, I was surprised when I read this article - I live about 15 minutes from the police station where this happened, and I heard plenty about the killings shortly after they occurred. However, this is the first I have heard about a video game connection. I was aware that there was at least one alleged "GTA murder" in the national media but had no idea that it and this local case were one and the same. As far as I can recall, there was no mention whatsoever in the local media about the game connection, at least not around the time of the shooting. In other words, the video game "defense" seems pretty contrived to me, and it might be a good idea to see how much credence is given to this defense by the courts, legislature, ESRB, etc. If this is just yet another cop killing in Alabama which happens to have idiots running the defense and spouting potentially harmful ideas about the dangers of free speech and media, then it doesn't belong in an international encyclopedia, as bad an incident as it was. If, however, we later see changes in the law or the entertainment industry based on this case (which seems unlikely), then it might be worthy of mention as a social phenomenon. So perhaps delete now, but include it if it becomes a bigger issue? -Barry K.24.116.114.14319:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really tough one. I'd say that this could bemerged into the controversy section of the article about the video game that inspired the murders, because ever since the murders, the game has gotten a very bad reputation.Srose(talk)19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources or references, and since this is a living person, remember Jimbo's admonition: "don't place a citation needed tag on it -remove the information entirely". Furthermore, the vast majority of the Google hits in a search for his name are not about this person, but rather about the NCAA football player of the same name.wikipediatrix01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added three references. Despite the fact that there's another person by the same name, these weren't too hard to find. Not sure either why it's significant that this other Devin Moore has more Google hits.Dsreyn03:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Triple cop murderer and prisoner on death row provoked by seeking to live out virtual-reality. The article is verifiable. Although he didn't inspire a song such asI Don't Like Mondays, I think this case will be remembered and cited as a prominent case of VR inspired violence, and so it probably warrants a separate article fromGrand Theft Auto: Vice City.Ohconfucius04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, information is verifiable and notable. The many google hits (I only get 1.5 million and only 40,000 with quotatation marks) on his name should be evident enough of his notability. That his actions resulted in a case against a video game for putting an idea in his head is significant, and it could end up being a landmark case. —ዮም |(Yom) |Talk •contribs •Ethiopia05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As already stated, the vast majority of the Google hits in a search for his name are not about this person, but rather about the NCAA football player of the same name.wikipediatrix05:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's not true. A search for "Devin Moore" and "Grand Theft" together gets me 17,300 hits, and taking "Devin Moore" out of quotation marks gets up to 33,000 (the 1.5/6 million figure was way larger than it should be because there are plenty of instances where both occur and neither the NCAA football player nor the killer are mentioned). —ዮም |(Yom) |Talk •contribs •Ethiopia05:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if the statement byUser:Wikipediatrix is true, how is that a reason for deletion? For example - if you search for "Ted Kennedy", I expect that the most matches by far will be for the US Senator. However, there is alsoTed Kennedy (hockey), longtime NHL star and member of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Should we delete the page on the hockey player because the Senator happens to be better known?Dsreyn23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
These are all dicdefs not suitable for WP. They have been hanging around for over a year. No-one has shown any inclination to do anything with them in that time so they are probably not expandable. Kindest thing is to put them to sleep. I also nominate:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page appears to be a hoax to me, since the article itself states that the show in question doesn't exist. However, it does sort of assert notability, so it didn't seem a good candidate for a speedy. It's a bit difficutl to google as the words "hiatus" and "television show" obviously come up with a lot of unrelated hit. But I'm pretty sure it's a fake. Therefore in violation ofWP:V andWP:HOAXDina17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a clear attempt to give something non-notable publicity. Just look at the website[23]:
We're wikied! Dunno how long before some wikimanager stomps on this like the shred of hearsay that it is, but at the moment Hiatus is at Wikipedia. I urge you to edit it to your heart's delight
I'll repost what I said on the talk page: The article wasn't put here as a joke -- the fanbase the article mentions *does* actually exists. Not only that, the article specifically states that the show itself never existed. So what's in-authentic about the article? Something can't be a hoax if the thing it's talking about actually exists, i.e. the fanbase of supporters for the non-existent television show "Hiatus" The only thing that might make this article viable for deletion is the fact that the fanbase isn't that large yet.
Take a look at the original (pre-stub) article. Looks like a clear attempt at a joke to me. Anyway it's irrelevant, as you say this just isn't notable. Something doesn't get an article just by virtue of the fact that it appears on the internet.--Lo2u(T •C)11:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fanbase the article mentions has been in existence for just over a week, and consists of a couple dozen people at the outside. Most of the content in the non-stub was either made up, or was based on one posting on the very new fansite. Wikipedia is not for original work, and it's not for stuff you and a few friends just put together. In the event that "save Hiatus" becomes a widely followed movement (on the order ofSnakes on a Plane or evenEvery time you masturbate… God kills a kitten) -- and I, for one, hope it does -- an article will be in order. At the moment, it's premature, and not remotely encyclopedic.Strong delete.Shmuel16:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page lacks any sort of source material and smacks distinctly of original research. While I agree that these cliches are well known as I do recognize some of them, this is the sort of thing which really needs some sort of sourcing to work.Lankybugger15:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WilyD and author. Interesting topic though, but I would suggest that thePersonal advertisement article needs to be improved and expanded first with the help of good references. This is a topic that has been the object of academic study by linguists and sociologists, and I have put a few articles on personal ads I found through JSTOR onTalk:Personal advertisement for anyone who is interested in working on it.up+l+and18:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I noted that none of the pages it links to link back toNATO helmet. And that the image onNATO helmet comes from one of the pages it links to. I generally prefer to keep stubs and ask people to work on them. I note that nominator has already contacted article creator with just this request. (Very ethical. Not like some deletionists.) I've contacted others who have worked on the article to let them know about the AfD. No strong opinion either way on my part. Perhapsvery weak keep contingent on someone providing sources. If someone shows up here and says they'll research this, great.--Anthony Krupp15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just don't think it's neccessarily worthy of research which is why I proposed it for deletion. I have no qualms about proposing a stub for deletion if it seems useless. I don't think an article on a particular type of helmet will grow into something anymore meaningful than it already is, and I just don't think of it as meaningful. Perhaps the article can be deleted and merged to be listed on the main Wikipedia helmet page, that would seem far more productive to me rather than just having a random helmet article on a specific type of helmet.Shazbot85Talk15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Why don't you just add this tiny stub to that page, then, and signal that you've done so here? I think that will speed the AfD along nicely.--Anthony Krupp15:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to, there's already a portion devoted to helmets and I don't feel it would be productive to add another section specifically for NATO helmets. The riot helmet section seems to be far more informative as well.Shazbot85Talk15:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Citing the official page of the reality tv series he's on is hardly proof of notability; only that he is a cast member in the upcoming show.Tarc04:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeff. Okay, season hasn't aired yet, so this can't expand from a stub until then, but there's no crystal ball issue here, and I believe an article would be well-merited once the season has started. I wouldn't want to make things confusing later by having a delete precedent here.Mangojuicetalk15:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasspeedy close, article converted to redirect. --ais523 11:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Small promotion, that when searched on Google.. came up with no decent matches. Inactive promotion that was an indy promotion, and isn't very known.RobJ198110:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I remember hearing and reading quite a bit about them when I was a kid. I'd definitely call for some sort of expansion on the subject first, if there's anyone out there that can do it, and see what the results are.Delete This UWF is non-notable and not the UWF I was thinking of (Herb Abrams' Universal Wrestling Federation).Deputy Marshall00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it seems to be notable, some of the article's claims are pretty dubious. It claimsCactus Jack had wrestled for the company; but having read Mick Foley's biography, the only UWF he ever mentions wrestling for was thesecond Universal Wrestling Federation. The fact that the other notable wrestlers listed have no mention of the Ultimate Wrestling Federation in their profiles leads me to suspect that this may be either an indy trying to make their reputation look good, or just an outright hoax. To those that want to keep the article - are you sure you're not mixing this promotion up with the two previousUniversal Wrestling Federations? –NeoChaosX [talk |contribs]07:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And checking the history of the article, it's original author isUser:Menace 2 Society(wrestler), who happens to share a name of a wrestler listed in this article. The editor's edit history shows he's created at least one other wrestler profile,Bishop Steele, who also is listed on the article's roster. I'm now more convinced that it's a self-promoting article, or just a wrestler creating a page for a company he used to work for. –NeoChaosX [talk |contribs]08:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasdelete. No comments even after relist so I'll treat it like a prod. I agree with the deletion since it's a one sentence article with no claim of notability and a collection random external links. -Bobet22:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,Deville (Talk)03:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Very large company. It is private so that it doesn't have to disclose its results, but its web site reports that it has "over 3000 worldwide employees and $200 million in revenue". External sources are consistent with this claim.TruthbringerToronto (Talk |contribs)04:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Okay, keep - 47 Gnews hits[24] including McClean's, the Mop & Pail, et al. Very reputable news sources - I'll try to add up a few references for the article.WilyD15:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article would/could be encyclopedic if it was remotely completed. The article was started as a list, but was entirely empty. —The Future15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
LikeLynn Peterson (alsoat AfD) this is a person whose sole claim to notability is having at some time been mayor ofThunder Bay, Ontario, a moderate-sized Canadian town. Looks like a one-term mayor (five years). Mayoralty of towns this size falls below the criteria for inclusion atWP:BIO and there is no other claim to notability here - actually it's a stub so nothing much there at all.Just zisGuy you know?15:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We should draw the distinction between the position/office itself, which could be encyclopedic, but the office-holder is probably not. It is not automatic and would depend on what the person did, and its impact.Ohconfucius
Delete. Municipal politicians are not notable perWP:BIO. TB is not even a big municipality: "According to the 2001 census, there were 109,016 people residing in Thunder Bay", 0.33% of the Canadian population.Ohconfucius03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the Thunder Bay article to understand why Thunder Bay is in fact a huge municipality, of extreme significance.WilyD11:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; 100,000 people might well be "a huge municipality, of extreme significance" if it were in Antarctica, but it isn't. Eliminating Wikiechos, this guy gets fewer ghits than the mayor ofWoluwe-Saint-Lambert, who has managed the notablesque feat of being mayor since 1977. Or the leader ofFalkirk (council area), which has more people. Average and unimportant local politician, andWP:BIO agrees.Angus McLellan(Talk)21:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A DRV consensus (heavily infested with spammers, but they were ignored) overturned the previous AfD on this subject in light of new evidence (including a New York Times article, published since the last AfD.) Please consult the DRV for the citations to new evidence. The version here is the most recent sourced version in the article history -- other, better versions may be in there for those who wish to check. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so Iabstain.Xoloz15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to be honest I don't care one way or another if this gets kept or deleted, but unlike the last AfD, there are now finally 2 non-blog sources provided which could be considered multiple sources underWP:BIO if one is being generous.--Isotope2316:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This Page appears to have more content from a user who archived it. To re-iterate the main points from theprevious discussion, it's been mentioned in multiple media sources, a small sample of which are here:
New York Times, 25 August, "Today in Business"
Chicago Tribune, 23 August, "Shoot From The Clip"
New York Magazine, 28 August, by Adam Sternbergh "Hey There, Lonelygirl"
New York Newsday, 17 August, by Megan Chan "Channeling into a new generation"
Denver Post, 1 August, "Click These"
Alameda Times-Star, 23 July, by Candace Murphy "Today's kids have their own outlets for creativity"
The Times of London, 19 August, by Jonathan Richards "Worldwide acclaim for lonely girl"
AgoraVox, 21 August, by Matthew Ingram "What Is YouTube Good For?"
Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, 6 August, (trans) "The Webcam Generation has a new star: "Lonelygirl15. But is she authentic?"
I came here to find out about the lonelygirl15 phenomenon and found out. ThanksIt's notable enough to make it into print media, it can be verified, and Wikipedia is in a position to be ahead of the curve in writing about topics like this, not behind it. I'm with the New York Times on this one.--BigCow17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, several of those could probably be considered trivial coverage, but #3 and #7 (both linked from the article) are not... the are full writeups on the subject.--Isotope2317:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From that link: "The debate rages at Wikipedia over whether or not Lonelygirl15 should have an entry in the online encyclopedia. If you have an account, please go to the Deletion Review and chime in (preferably supporting Undelete) about the matter." Heh. No comment.~a (user •talk •contribs)17:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For pete's sake, leave the article alone for one freaking minute and let it grow organically. Over the next few weeks/months, I predict these videos will grow even more in popularity and the truth behind their intent will become clear. Wikipedia needs to be able to move with trends like this, not ignore them in fear of appearing unencyclopedic. -Asriel
Comment Wikipedia is not here to document trends or bandy in crystalballism about whether or not the intent of these videos will ever become clear. Up until recently (i.e. during the DRV) the subject did not meetWP:BIO and thus did not merit an article. Now it has been demonstrated the subjectdoes meetWP:BIO and it appears the article will stay. I'd say the process worked quite nicely.--Isotope2318:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Decent news story, multiple sources. Older versions were better, but allowing it to grow would work too.—The precedingunsigned comment was added byBjackrian (talk)
Comment As noted above, this person has been covered in the conventional media many times. However, the number of articles is not so great as it first appears; there seem to be about four "primary" articles that were syndicated and appeared elsewhere with different titles but identical or substantially identical text.Uucp19:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple sources, Internet celebrity, reported in Hollywood People magazine (a YouTube sidebar). Things have changed since two months ago. People should REALIZE THAT.65.30.40.8720:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. theres no denying that something is happening here. though correct wikipedia is not here to follow trends....wikipedia cannot simply ignore the fact that the phenomenon exists.— Precedingunsigned comment added by75.108.36.155 (talk •contribs)
Comment I officially have toabstain from this, but I just want it on record that I'm very uncomfortable with Wikipedia having an article about an Internet personality without a real name to go along with it.Danny Lilithborne00:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perOhNoitsJamie. I voted "delete" last time, and I am coming around to the idea that this may now passWP:BIO. Whilst it's wiki's declared policy not indulge in speculation (i.e. be ahead of the curve), LG15 does appear to have become a phenomenon. The reputable broadsheets have picked up and crystallised the grassroot movement which wiki was confined to ignoring. It is not against wiki policy to be "on the ball".Ohconfucius04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quoting myself from the undelete discussion: The fact that there are articles about other Youtube people athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Notable_YouTube_users shows that people are looking for them. Several of which have passed AfD's of their own. Having watched this debate, to me, the real reason for the delation really seems to be less about the rules of Wiki, and more about the preceived popularity of who the article is about. That coupled with the reasons above means that this article should exist.Dave05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And now a comment: How does internet fame differ from real world? The internet is part of the real world. And please, no "I know it when I see it" answers which amount to little more than a cop-out.Dave05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because i wrote it and its great and i knew i woz right the first time (please ensure irony and sarcasm filters are operational.)Petesmiles09:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barely notable, barely interesting, but meets WP:V, WP:BIO standards, and whatever this thing is leading up to/in to will likely need it's own article as well.Ronabop16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I somewhat agree with Ronabop. Barely notable, completely uninteresting, meets WP:BIO just barely (if you remove all of the non-RSs, there are a few left), but I'm thinking it's not leading up to/into anything. I'm sure we'll be back at AFD in six months after all of the fanboys have given up on her.~a (user •talk •contribs)17:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I heard the name today, wanted to find out more, and turned to wikipedia to do so. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?jenniedo 1 September 2006
Keep Just read the LA Times article on her/the hunt and immediately turned to Wiki for mo'. The NYTimes is also following her exploits at their Screens column/blog.jengod23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the media coverage alone pushes this out of NN territory. I agree the article may need to be looked at later, but for now it works for me.23skidoo02:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It’s pretty dull at the moment but Wikipedia was the first place I looked to get an attempt at an objective view on this 'event'. Whilst there are "millions" (quotes one of the articles) of people following this we should document it. If it later proves a non-event, that is another matter. --Nige12:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there should be no more talk of deletion. It's obvious that this is now a notable and much talked of phenomenon.— Precedingunsigned comment added by88.106.21.68 (talk •contribs)
Keep It is clear lonelygirl15 has made her mark (or her producers have). More are learning about her daily and when they turn to wiki there won't be a lonelygirl15 entry?? There should be an entry. --Barafost10:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's actually being talked about in forums that are not YouTube. Plus, my parents have heard of her. Maybe she wasn't extremely well-known a month ago, but when you have the New York Times and NPR doing stories on you, it definitely warrants a wikipedia article.Kdar13:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I preface by sayign that I realize I do not have a lot of edits. When this article was for AfD last time, I could see saying that she was not notable enough, but I think her popularity has skyrocketed since that time even further. There do exist multiple sources including newsworthy sources such as the LA Times referencing her. Also, the whole controversy involving the trademark application along with a few other theories not yet mentioned in the article makes this possible to be a genious marketing event. I think because of all this, she is notable enough to have an entry.24.168.219.12114:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Encyplopedias mustn't dictate what interests people (e.g., articles on the fruit fly need to be there, though not of interest to everyone.). Lonleygirl15 is video literature.... real, fictional, or semi-fictional, boring, interesting? no matter. It is a cultural phenomenon that exists and captures the attention of a lot more people than, say, difficult academic new music, or arcane Sanskrit poetry. Elitist intellectualism has no place in legislating what constitutes general human knowledge.Semari116:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I won't pretend to be disinterested with respect to the article creator's history of apparently self-promotional edits. However, this article appears to be about the creator's own concept, website, and (apparently self-published[25]) book. I think it objectively does not meet the criteria for notability. (This is not to be confused with the better knownPaleolithic diet.)Wmahan.18:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Big Keep The book for this is often in the top 15000 on Amazon and has helped thousands of people. I should know- I work for it. "self-published books usually fail" is an argument for deletion? Are you kidding me?!Jlangley300714:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, according tothis link this user added to a Wikipedia article, Eric Morse is Joe Morse's brother. Many of the links are unrelated to the book; for example, the top two are about pet food.Wmahan.06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet any reasonable notability requirements - seeWP:BK, which quite rightly notes that a "simple Google...is fraught with problems and has been deprecated as a positive notability test". "Evolution Diet" is also a brand of vegan pet food plus other things - a more useful Google, for instance with "+Morse -Amazon"[26] doesn't seem to bring up anything except sales links and various directory entries and placements, without anything useful in establishing independent notability that I could see. Self-publication and self-written articles (as is the case here) do indeed raise the bar on establishing notability (see the "self-publication" and "self-interested creation" sections). Finally, all Keep noms to date have been directly associated with the book. -David Oberst07:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Delete I originally speedied the article. It has been rewritten in a much more acceptable fashion. However, in spite ofThe Onion being the funniest website in the world in my opinion, this joke just didn't seem to catch on.Dipics17:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging or redirecting doesn't make much sense. This is just a minor item in the history of Onion articles. --Whpq03:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't focus on the Onion provenence--the concept of a doomsday device has nothing in particular to do with the Onion. If there is already an article on doomsday devices (Dr. Strangelove, etc.), merge the thanatos and heavy-collidor information with that.— Precedingunsigned comment added by66.14.154.3 (talk •contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasMerge toFrank R. Wallace. Note that this articlemust be rewritten to be aneutral description of this person and his ideas, and it must also referencereliable, third-party sources that are not related to Frank R. Wallace or his publishing company. Wikipedia articles are not the place for an uncritical description of this person or his ideas channeled directly from his books. Both theNeo-Tech (philosophy) andFrank R. Wallace articles were originally created and their text remains substantially written by a now-banned user whose express and only purpose on Wikipedia was a co-ordinated, sustained campaign to push a particular point-of-view across political and philosophical articles.
The text from the current Neo-Tech article cannot simply be copied into the Frank R. Wallace article. It must be added only as a neutral description of Neo-Tech that is proportionate to a well-balanced, well-sourced article on this person and his ideas and activities, with reference to sources unrelated to him. Anything that does not meet these conditions, which are essential to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, will be deleted. The keep result of the prior deletion discussions were contingent on the cleanup of this article to conform to Wikipedia policies, and were based on the notability the subject insofar as it is what some commenters described as a "mail-order scam" and as "cultist crackpots"; yet the article currently mentions nothing whatsoever of these activities or views. —Centrx→talk •08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No peer-reviewed sources on either side of the issue. Also,WP:NEO.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBi (talk •contribs)
Speedy Close No AfD notice on the article and from the looks of it, the article is locked from editing due to an edit war. This is a content dispute, not an AfD issue... besides, we don't need peer-reviewed sources for every article to beverified.--Isotope2316:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There was just a AfD earlier this month. This article is based on primary sources. It is perfectly legitimate to cite authors of books as a sources about what tbeir own own books say. Just because there are no secondary sources available, it doesn't mean the article should be deleted. And, Neo-Tech is definitely noteable.WP:NEO (neologism) doesn't even apply.JoeMystical17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment people interested in retaining this article should probably try and find some secondary sources. Basing an article strictly on primary sources is notbest practice.--Isotope2317:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the deal. One guy named Frank Wallace developed the philosophy. He published his own books. Since then other authors people have been writing about the philosophy, and Wallace has published their books and articles for them with his own publishing company. I don't know if the latter would be considered secondary sources since they're technically not self-published, but it's all that's available. There are no books that go into describing Neo-Tech that are not published by Wallace's publishing company, that I'm aware of.JoeMystical19:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article should stay but be made more interesting. It is a collection of citations from two or three books, and that doesn't qualify as a good article on a philosophy.--SidiLemine17:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CheersAddhoc this is, like any fast-learning experience, getting pretty painful. I find it hard to believe that poeple would get THAT heated on an encyclopedia article. Did you notice that the other wiki's article on NT are exact replicas?--SidiLemine17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean on the foreign language Wikipedias? Yes, it looks like they were translated from this one. The French version looks just like it:[27] And the German:[28]JoeMystical17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd understand that people get heatedafter you want to delete an article...; but to get angry at the bad editing of an article on which you wanted to participate (that should prove you deem the article worthy of existance) to the point you propose (3 times!) to delete it... Well, it's good to see people take the project at heart! By the way, It's just the french article that's a copy of this one. I quite likethe portuguese one. Full text:"Neo-Tech is a philosophy similar to Objectivism. Its goal is to clear mysticism from the human mind". Plus a link to Pax Neo Tex (prank byBi)--SidiLemine18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And why would I even propose an AfD to delete my own link if I'm self-promoting?User:$yD: the first 2 AfDs were by other people, for other reasons.Bi18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JoeMystical, I obviously didn't mean that. Please keep me out of your contest of bad faith.Bi, I didn't know that. Do you know what were the reasons? That could prove instructive for this time.--SidiLemine18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
VfD by Tony Sidaway: reason: "Original research, neologism. Obscure crackpot ideas."
Thanks. Your reason is that it is weighted on one side only, right? One thing I wanted to ask around for a moment is, when something is evident ("cats have four legs", say), at what point can you just say it without it being OR? Any idea where I can look?--SidiLemine19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, you know what? I started this AfD because people were telling me onWT:NPOV that an article with only self-published sources is unencyclopedic and should go. And now you're saying that it shouldn't go. OK, how about this: if you really want to keep the article, pleasepleaseplease draft out a plan of howyou would improve the article, instead of giving vague requests to other people to "find some secondary sources" and make the article "more interesting", yadda yadda yadda.Bi18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone that told you an article is unencyclopedia because it has only self-published sources is wrong, under the condition that self-published sources are only used a sources for what the author of those sources are saying in an article about the authors of those sources. A book by Frank Wallace is a good source to show what a book what by Frank Wallace says. There's no disputing that. But, since Wallace's books are self-published they're probably not good as secondary sources, which means you couldn't use Wallace's opinion in a different article about something else. The article is not too bad as it is. The way to improve it would be to bring in more books by Wallace and others who write about Neo-Tech. The way to not improve it, is to do what you were doing, which is bringing in posts from anonymous people on forums and even a web page you made yourself as sources. That would be using self-published sources as secondary sources, which means using self-published sources in a article other than an article about the source itself. You made a web page called Pax-NeoTex which is making jokes about Neo-Tech. You can't use that as a source in the article, meaning it's not a reliable secondary source. You could only use that as a source if you're using it as a source about Pax-NeoTex if there were a Pax-NeoTex article. You're not a published expert on Neo-Tech, but a self-published jokester (that is, your web page is a joke page).JoeMystical18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:NEO specifically disagrees with your argument: "Neologisms that are in wide use -- but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources -- are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Plain and simple.
Comment That's not applicable at all. Do you thinkScientology is a neologism and therefore that article should be deleted? That's absurd. This article is not about a word, but about a philosophy represented by a word.JoeMystical18:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scientologydoes have peer-reviewed secondary sources discussing it, including a senior thesis. And you're splitting non-existent hairs: obviously when one discusses a word, one will discuss the meaning of the word.Bi18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHere they go again.Bi, you must admit it is possible that there is no available documented criticism on these guys. If there's none, it just means they're not important enough to attract some.JoeMystical, the article as it is is not interesting and will strike almost anyone who stumble upon it as an ad. For the sake of your own cause, please consider making it look like there has been some other consideration than the books. Basically, Islam is defined by the Coran. But if you got out there and did the article only by citing it, it would look unapropriate. I know, it's not a cult, but you get my drift. Or else, consider changing it to articles about the books.--SidiLemine18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Books about Neo-Tech are cited in other books, such as inChurch Disputes Mediation (Gracewing Publishing 2003, page 287) and inFresh Wisdom: Breakthrough to enlightenment, ISBN: 1419618555 (page 117), but as far as I know there are no criticisms. So the fact that it is cited, if not criticized, indicates some importance. Even without those citations, it's obviously noteable.JoeMystical18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a line between being imporant enough to attract controversy and being notable. But I think I'm loosing my time here. How about we flag the article as "neutrality disputed", and wait until someone (Bi maybe?)edits a book against it? Then we'll have opposing secondary sources. No, more seriously:JoeMystical, you didn't answer my proposition.--SidiLemine18:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To improve the article? That's what I've been trying to do, but Bi here deletes the cited material. He's doesn't want the article to exist, but since he can't get rid of it, he tries to delete almost everything out of the article.JoeMystical18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Are you new to Wikipedia? It sounds like you're advocating what is called "original research" which means to put things in an article that can't be cited from reliable sources. SeeWP:OR. We can't put our own opinions, arguments, or criticisms in Wikipedia articles. That's a big no no. 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually Iam new.Please don't bite me. Or get sarcastic, for what it's worth. I never mentionned our opinions. I just said "stuff not from the books or from the authors". As in newspaper articles, sales review, that kind of stuff. I'm amazed at my own patience sometimes.--SidiLemine19:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. I thought you meant our own opinions. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or anything. Yes that would be good if they existed. All the books are published by Wallace's company and I don't know if they've released numbers on how many books have been sold. If so, you really couldnt use it as a secondary source. You could just say something like "they claim that 500,000 books on the philosophy have been sold."JoeMystical19:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once more, thewhole reason for this AfD was that there aren't any peer-reviewed sources from either the pro-Neo-Tech side or the anti-Neo-Tech side, so if you'd like to keep this article, please at least suggest something more useful than "find some secondary sources". Jeez, I'm tired of this.Bi19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another darn comment... OK, I just had to get this out of my system. Friends, Wikipedians, countrymen, do you know why the Neo-Tech article is still not of encyclopedic quality? Why people keep voting to not to delete the article, but to clean up the article, but it's still a mess?
I'll tell you why. Because everybody keeps waiting for someone who's not himself to clean up the article. You see this in the firstVfD, you see this in theprevious AfD, and you see this in the comments above. Yes, yes, the article can be great article, if only somebody who's not me goes the extra mile to clean up the article and pull out good-quality secondary sources from his magic hat! Yes sir, it'll be a "headache", but it's notmy headache! And guess what, everyone ends up waiting for that someone who's not himself to do all the dirty work. Read the comments above, read the comments in the VfD, read the comments in the prior AfD, and judge for yourself whether I'm right.
Stop this. Please. This has gone on long enough. Keep, don't keep, I don't really care now. But stop all this buck-passing.
Comment The article doesn't need much "cleaning up." It's pretty well sourced and informative. I was trying to make it even better but then you go and delete the sourced information. Either help improve the article or get out of the way, please. Don't give us this "passing the buck" stuff. I wouldn't call deleting large amounts of information "cleaning up." .JoeMystical23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a mess!Bi, no one at Talk:NPOV told you to place this on AfD again. I specifically advised you on how to deal with individual statements that cannot be verified from reliable published sources. I advised you to follow the standard dispute resolution procedures, and to not edit war. I also suggested that you just walk away from this if you had a personal stake in it.JoeMystical, it is indeed true that an article that can be supported only by self-published sources does not meet the requirements ofWikipedia:Verifiability andWikipedia:Reliable sources, and should not be in Wikipedia. I suggest that you read thepolicy on self-published sources. --Donald Albury22:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what are you getting at? You say the article shouldn't be in Wikipedia, yet you won't support its deletion. And then you "advised" me to do a whole lot of things I've already tried to do. Can anyone suggest something more constructive? *birds chirping*Bi03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:Reliable sources andWP:Verifiability say: "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves."JoeMystical 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Why it says "and other published sources of dubious reliability" I don't know. Obviously the sources are not of dubious reliability. How could a book be of dubious reliability when used as a source for itself? It's just straighforward quoting and paraphrasing.JoeMystical23:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Self-published sources may be used as a source for what an author said about himself, i.e.,Joe blow claims that he was abducted by little green monsters flying a space ship that looked like a 1949 Studebaker. They may not be used as sources for other things, i.e., we can't use a self-published source forJoe Blow claims that Spirow Agnew was abducted by little green monsters flying a space ship that looked like a BMW Isetta. --Donald Albury00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right, but besides self-published sources being used as a source for what an author says about himself they can also be used as a source for how the author describes his philosophy. They can't be used as a source for asserting whether the philosophy is good or not, of course, but a book can always be used a source for what's in that book.JoeMystical02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate motherhood statements. That's all.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBi (talk •contribs)
Comment It doesn't make sense to merge. I understand why those who voted to merge would do so though, because they probably were not aware that of the following: Wallace is not the only developer of Neo-Tech. There are other writers who contribute their ideas to make what is called Neo-Tech. Only citing Wallace, you would not get a full picture of the philosophy. The philosophy stands alone because it's a combination of ideas from different people. Wallace's son, Mark Hamilton, has probably written about half of it. I oppose a merge. A merge withFrank R. Wallace makes no sense. And a merge with Objectivism would be original research because no secondary sources say it is a form of objectivism. The Neo-Tech article is a pretty good article. It's pretty well sourced and defintely written NPOV. There are PLENTY of sources. The books themselves are the sources. It is a good article, and the vote is totally uncalled for. "Bi" who put this up for deletion spends his time writing his own web page called "Neo-Tex" which is a feeble attempt to ridicule the philosophy. He doesn't like Neo-Tech and wants to get rid of the article and wants to remove as much words about Neo-Tech from Wikipedia as possible. Look at what he did to the Neo-Tech article. He tried to cut it down to almost nothing, deleting sourced information: He cut it down from this[29] to this[30] That is totally unjustified. Wikipedia is about being informative as possible, not least informative as possible. Bi has initiated this action for all the wrong reasons. Please consider changing your vote, because it's going to be moved back to its own article eventually anyway. Probably no one will change their vote, but at least this is here for the record so anyone can see exactly what this was all about. It is totally improper attempt to delete a fine article, with those voting not having enough background information to make an informed decision.JoeMystical03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be more acceptable to have a full-extent description of the guy's system of thought on his own article than on a separate one. Plus it would put the length of the neo tech citations in perspective with something else, instead of being evaluatedper se. Should we wait forJoeMystical to approve, or is there a time limit to these things?--SidiLemine14:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one has a veto over the decision. AfDs normally run for five days. An admin determines when to close the discussion and what the result is. -Donald Albury14:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, SidiLemine, does your new "Merge" vote mean you are cancelling your earlier "Keep" vote? I've struck it out for you for now, but it'll be good to confirm.Bi07:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, no worries. I wouldn't want to loose the subject altogether, but if we keep it that way we might as well merge it for added consistency. Oh and I support merging withNeo-Objectivism, as "Neo-Tech is the Business/Application mode of objectivism"Wallace, Frank R. Liberating Objectivism: The Liberation Manifest .--SidiLemine10:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Band with one album, working on second. I don't really see an assertion of notability here, but the article has been on WP since Nov. 2005 so I'm hesitant to speedy it.NawlinWiki16:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Wiki is about infomation, and this article provides more than would be apprpriate for a dictionary entry.— Precedingunsigned comment added by68.162.178.16 (talk •contribs)
Transwiki although I understand the anon opinion, it is also true that the current content is original research and I'm afraid it will be hard to ever have a reliable source on the meanings of bitch-slap.Pascal.Tesson22:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki When I read an article athttp://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/sony.html, I didn't know what the word "bitch slap" means which is used in the article. Seeing my dictionary didn't help. Then I googled with keywords of "define: bitch slap" and got this article. I believe I'm not the only non-native-English-speeker who was helped by this article. But I still understand that words which don't have historical/social importance should not be in encyclopedia but in dictionary.125.192.71.7501:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete the article contains primarily speculative statements with no sources to verify. IMDB lists it as preproduction, and in scripting. If solid verifiable sources can be found, then I'll change to a keep. --Whpq17:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article has been cleaned up and is a great example of how such an article should be written; hence the change in vote. That being said, though, I still don't really see how a future production really deserves to be in an encyclopedia.Akradecki21:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs a clean up, and there are a few editors, myself included, who have been working on cleaning up those future films with a comics theme to eliminate rampant rumors and force a high level of citation. I'll contact them to vote here and to focus on a cleanup there.ThuranX23:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AsThuranX indicated, the article needs a clean-up and valid documentation. The clean-up shouldn't be difficult; just needed to be brought to someone's attention. I'll see what I can do regarding an improvement. --Erik00:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm somewhat conflicted about bringing this to AFD. On the one hand, it strikes me as just a place to hang some link spam on. On the other hand, it is about a real company who produced some real boats. --RoySmith(talk)17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exactly, it is about a real company who produced some real boats, I don't see it nowhere near spam. I've also removed some of the links.Michaelas1017:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the original poster I believe it should be kept and I plan to expand it further. If it strikes you as a place to hang links on it is probably because I have really just gotten started getting the information posted. It was a real company that was part of the history of sailing in america and the sailboats are still out there being used. It would be nice if wikipedia could be a center of information on these boats. As far as the links themselves, they are all good sources of information, not commercial.Lasher9999
Weak keep. It would be nice to have some refs I could actually verify, instead of what could be (for all I know) a press release in a 1970s magazine, but... I guess it's good enough. Sort of.Kafziel 15:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Delete. FailsWP:CORP.Kafziel18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,Actually, it does meet the criteria for "Criteria for products and services" number 1. I just added a couple of references that show this. There are more.Lasher999922:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the change Kafziel. Two of the references are from books. One is from a magazine review. If you would like I can scan the books and email to you.Lasher999917:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Non-notable businessman; a minor executive at a small subsidiary company. Appears to failWP:BIO andWP:V as the only verification comes from sources within his company. Possible vanity page.Kafziel17:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This businessman definitely has a decent level of notability. His peers in Bangalore have elected him as President ofTiE, which is significant, and he's also verifiable as a contributor at theWorld Economic Forum. I've added both to the article. --Mereda18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try the Google test again. My answer's 56k, one week into the start of his TiE year in office. It doesn't make sense to me that we should delete someone at this level of media visibility, big in Indian IT and edging towards being an international name. There's even a story about him being nominated a few years ago for WEF's "100 Future Global Leaders". Will he make it at that level, I don't know and i'm not guessing, but he's already well above the "college professor" test.--Mereda21:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Google test is not a valid test of notability. The WEF isn't really, either; if you pay your dues, you're in. The company that sends representatives may be notable, but not necessarily the representatives themselves. None of the links in the article are stories by neutral and reliable third parties.Kafziel22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While ignoring the Google results, did you notice the book[31] with a chapter about Kar? Personally I still think his TiE status matters because he's identified by others as a business role model and mentor. It's more sensible to keep an article about him and improve it.Mereda07:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and the fact that this isn't a proper encyclopedic biography, but essentially just a collection of links to information elsewhere. If his company is redlinked, they're not notable enough for him to be notable.Akradecki22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pradeep is not a well known figure in Bangalore nor in India. Whatever articles are cited are from his personal websites --Liznorman21:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He is a well known figure in Bangalore in general and all over India in the hardware sector. His company is well known and as founder, he becomes notable. Also an industry thought leader. --Gurubrahma14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
"Jumping the couch" has only gained notability because of the notability of Tom Cruise and the couch incident, as well as the notability of Urban Dictionary, who coined the term. I know the term has been referenced by several reliable websites, but there is no evidence of the term being in common usage in everyday speech/writing, as are some other pop culture neologisms such asmetrosexual. Until we see this neologism clearly being used by many people (not just listed on websites as one of the coolest slang phrases of the year), I don't think it should have its own article. A brief mention in the Tom Cruise page, along with the couch incident, is enough. --Schzmo17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll read that, you'll find that it doesn't apply in this case. Specifically, because there are multiple, reliable independant sources. So no, no one has offered any argument for deletion.WilyD13:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the (redundant) external links section and missed the references section that actually links to pages discussing the term. I'd say it's still pretty close, though, as the source for the MSN article is a slang dictionary (which are somewhat less than highly respected in the field of research) and the other is a self-published source.Kafziel14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enough for you, not enough for me. I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion, and all I ask is the same respect in return. If you disagree, that's okay.Kafziel14:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buttheir source is a slang dictionary. Personal interpretation always enters into this kind of thing, becauseWP:RS is not a blanket policy. It's up to the community to make the final determination about reliability, and for my part (and consensus often upholds this) slang dictionaries don't hold water.Kafziel14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They still have editorial controls at the like - their source being a slang dictionary (or at least, their mentioned source) is not germane to the issue. It acquires the "endorsement" of a major news organisation during the process, making it reliable. Slang dictionaries are sometimes reliable, but many are not (i.e. Urban Dictionary allows users to submit original content. But a reliable publisher publishing a slang dictionary, or a peer reviewed paper on slang would still cut mustard.)WilyD14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But not only is it a neologism, it's a protologism. This term has not even beenused (in casual speech/writing) by anyone yet. If we don't know how people will use or apply this term, what purpose does this serve other than a slang dicdef? --Schzmo15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keepitsnotable, i dont think anyone can say this is not a notable incidant, plus it's something i think people would look upQrc200621:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be kept because it was an event of public notoriety. People who don´t understand the term, here they can know it´s origin.
Delete - The event was definitely notable, but this is about the invented TERM "jumping the couch" not the actual event. I can invent the term "dangle the kid" (meaning a stupid thing to do) for Michael Jackson's notable "events" but that doesn't make the invented term notable. Time will/should tell whether this neologism sticks around. -Ektar22:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is pure vanity and probably autobiographical: the only editors are two anonymous users andRkenward. I think Ryan Kenward is not notable enough for an article. Google only gives about 200 hits, most of which are his personal sites and profiles.Stefan Jansen18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; redirect toRealm of Shadows may be a good idea. Creating a notable website does not make one notable and if I'm not mistaken, it's not that difficult to get your own podcast. The article will beunverifiable in any form because no third party sources seem to exist.Srose(talk)18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Certainly not within levels 1-10 of the English football league system, that being the level at which teams are inherantly notable (WP:CORP), and no assertion of any grounds for notability otherwise. Information appears to be completely unverifiable.Robotforaday12:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be a club playing at, or having played at, a sufficient level for which notability could be claimed or verified. --Alias Flood01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is sure far from notable levels. It does play just in regional league of a prefecture and we don't know even the country it comes from. --User:KRBN09:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not delete Either keep it and clean it up or merge it into something like an ECW pay-per-view page. The PPV meetsWP:N, but lack informationis all. —The Future20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Delete. This was NOT a ECW PPV, it was just a regular event. ECW gave most of their events unique names whether they were relevant or not.TJ Spyke09:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, Mainly because there is no consensus that non-PPV rasslin' events should be included without some special reason (and even individual PPVs that share the same monkier should usually be merged into something on the history of the event or whatnot).youngamerican(ahoy-hoy)12:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of these events were notable though, ECW just had a history of giving most of their shows unique names, just like we don't have pages for every single WWE tour(despite them all having unique names).TJ Spyke03:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats still no reason why we can't have alist of the names somewhere. (Not the results though) Why don't you just list them under a new section onList of ECW pay-per-view events? Even though they aren't pay-per-views, there is a section for non-pay-per-view supercards on this article, so make a new section there maybe? —The Future11:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not it's fancruft...which this is. Had this even been slightly notable I'd most likely change my vote to "delete" or "weak delete," but this show ultimately wasn't of much consequence (if any at all) in terms of major events in the promotion.Deputy Marshall06:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasSpeedy delete, patent nonsense, recreated for the third time (the first two times, it was asserted that he invented the sand castle), will protect.NawlinWiki20:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the virtual equivalent of aWP:NFT issue. This made up character in an online game is not notable:there is 1 Google hit, and it isn't even about the character in question. Speedy template removed, or else it would have been handled that way.Erechtheus18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Really? I knew that they couldn't be removed by the creator, but I thought that removal by any other user was sufficient and required that a speedy become an AfD if the page needed to be deleted.Erechtheus18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who disagrees can put a {{hangon}} tag on the article, but once the db tag is there it's up to the closing admin to decide what to do with it. You placed the tag in good faith, so there's no basis for the anon to remove it.Kafziel18:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Appears to be entirelyoriginal research, or more precisely, promoting one's own essay about Communism. It has not received any media attention, has not beenpublished anywhere (apart from a couple of web forums), so it's hardlyverifiable even if it were anotable political idea - which I think it isn't. --Zoz(t)19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that the expression "new communism" is widely used in the popular and academic press (see for example, George Will's essay in Newsweek, 5/9/2005 p.72. "The Stalins of this "new communism" are people like Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and even Tony Blair..."). However none of these, as far as I can tell, refer to the same theories expounded upon in this article. Note further, the person who wrote this article misspelled "communism" in the first line.Uucp19:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP New Communism is clearly a new and diffrent idea from Communism and other ideas. It has characteristics that are not Communist but are more Nationalist. Spelling has nothing to do on weather it should be deleted or not. For spelling can be corrected. Why don't we fix the article not delet it. --PETER THE GREAT05:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote to keep because as Peter Watson has said it is a clear and diffrent political idea from normal Communism and has some characteristics as Peter has said that make it a bit Nationalist --59.100.36.8508:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete, there was a discussion at [[32]] following some similar lines like this. However, this article is solely made up of OR and unreferenced material. IP number of 59.100.36.85 should be checked for possible sock-puppeting (language similar to other Peterwats edits). --Soman07:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have just fix the article about New Communism doesn't have to be deleted. I think it might need to be fix a bit more. So I vote to keep it--59.100.0.910:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not an established term, not even a neologism. I wouldnt go so far as to call it nonsense, but it is certanly borderline.Ezeu19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't seem to be nonsense, but it certainly doesn't seem to be notable. A google search returns about600 results, but many of these are "classical Negro spiritual music" and similar things. This seems to be an unproven theory and while some unproven theories are notable (i.e. human cloning), this one hasn't gathered sufficient attention.Srose(talk)19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. The first sentence begins, "According to recent speculation". This self-confessed speculation is not sourced and I can't find anything reliable to use as a reference. Wikipedia isnot a crystal ball (if this product is even in the works).Srose(talk)19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even look remotely plausible, especially considering it should be released in 5 years with graphics up to par with the PS2. Technology should be advancing, it is isn't it?InvertRect01:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article already went (successfully) through theProposed deletion process--yes, it was deleted. Unfortunately, since links remained, and since no traces for the reasons of its deletion remained, it was re-created and subsequently edited by well-intended users. This approach intends to avoid the confusion.
This article was created and edited in good faith, but the very concept and content are, in my opinion, misguided. There is no such thing as an absolute color space--try finding a definition of this concept outside Wikipedia (and ignoring Wikipedia mirrors), and you will fail.
The reason is that the concept of an "absolute color space" doesn't reconcile at all with the well-established concepts ofcolor space andcolor model. In essence, this article duplicates some of the concepts in bothcolor space andcolor model, without really clarifying what a "non-absolute" color space would be. That's because there is no such thing as a non-absolute (relative?) color space. --Gutza
Comment: The article seems to be trying to describe, with several errors, what the industry calls adevice-independent color space.Gazpacho03:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to say I really don't understand why this was nominated. I've worked with colour management for many years and the terms and definitions of "absolute colour space" and "relative colour space" are well-known in that field. A Google search brings up several non-Wikipedia references and definitions. It's certainly not original research. --Canley06:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the author of the request for deletion, and I stand corrected: the article should be kept. I don't know whether I should de-list it from AfD myself. For anyone curious on what happened, I'll explain myself. I did do my research before proposing this for deletion the first time, and I really didn't find any credible source at that time; I obviously didn't do any more research for listing it on AfD afterwards. Quiddity, I think the article you listed was inspired by Wikipedia content, so it wouldn't count if that was the case (I found several wording similarities between Wikipedia content and that article.) Of course, I can't be certain it was. But Canley's vote and explanation made me search Google again--lo and behold, now I found several very credible sources mentioning absolute color spaces--including a patent application by Seiko[34]. I apologise for the trouble, and, as the person who proposed deletion in the first place, I explicitly authorize anyone who knows the procedure to de-list this article from AfD. --GutzaTT+07:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep as being notable within her field (fetish and bondage). My search yields 77,500 relevant results, and it should be noted for the umpteenth time that "distinct hits" are complete rubbish; according toWikipedia:Search engine test, Microsoft only returns 552 unique hits, and I highly doubt anyone is going to argue that we're comparing apples and apples here.RFerreira19:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Vanity by non-notable businessman. Google only turns up his personal site, Wikipedia mirrors, and some sites that appear to be other people with the same name. Page was created by "Cmoehring".MysteryDog20:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article should stay because Mr. Maus is a notable person in seven different television/radio markets around the pacific/southwest.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,Deville (Talk)04:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Have not seen any decent evidence to remove the site as it provides details about the cross country team and is allready linked with the main school site. All though it seems frequent vandalism occurs, in all instances it has been swiftly taken care of.
Delete or Merge and Rewrite. Non-notable. If there is an article on the high school, then merge with the high school article and re-write, because the article is not in what you would call, tip-top shape. --Nishkid6421:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should keep it it is a bunch of kids who are excited about what they have accomplished. If you don't think that it is strong reporting ask them to step it up I am sure they would be willing to work harder.Go Cougars
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. TRSi is a well-known crack/warez group in the early-mid '90s on PC and Amiga. Perhaps we can find some more external links for you but the existing ones are a good start for verifiability. --Vossanovao<20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple new links to the article (replacing worthless ones). I can't guarantee they meet WP:RS though. Scenery Amiga is the best link of the bunch for group information. --Vossanovao<16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published sources in articles about themselves
Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following:
relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation or
not contentious, such as basic biographical information. All information of a self-published nature should be looked at with a critical eye.
Keep. I don't know why they both share one article. Anyway, everybody who had an Amiga and some cracked games remembers them. --Paniq01:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
C'mon. Notability doesn't go away, so "dead systems" is irrelevent. Things can't "lose" notability, even if no one cares anymore - this isn't Wikinews.WilyD13:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; I'd say Triad was a pretty important cracking group in Nordic countries at least (how do I know? eh... um... my...backup copies of some C64 games here happen to be cracked by them, and if that stuff has somehow come to my hands on the pre-Internet era, that's quite an accomplishment. And yes, I have genuine versions of the gamesnow =). However, the verifiability is a bit of a problem here - "underground" stuff tends, by definition, stay pretty obscure and by definition hard to verify... Their demoscene career, however, is probably better documented by outside sources. So even if it's deleted now, I don't mind seeing it again if someone fixes the article to have better sources. Especially on the demoscene stuff. --wwwwolf (barks/growls)13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability isnt the standard here folks... verifiability... to that extent the information is verifiable, even if its poorly written and needs npoving. Clean it up ... dont delete it. ALKIVAR™14:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, famous warez group, and not that it matters but during most of its time on the warez scene, Triad was doing nothing illegal (because of outdated copyright laws).bbx10:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Please referencehttp://www.GHA.org that is the website of the Georgia Hospital Association. They are a current customer of LiveProcess. One of the reasons that I feel so strongly that it needs to be on Wikipedia is because it is somewhere people go for information they trust. The purpose of this is to make them aware that this is out there.
Delete in its present form. Article reads like an ad, and the author's comment above about the purpose for this being here is clearly advertising. That being said, the concept is an interesting one, and a viable article could be written from a non-product perspective on the general need for unified languages.Akradecki22:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Creator of the article: RScano. He has a number of Google hits, but I don't know if they all are pertaining to him. However, the article is basically a resume as nominator said. --Nishkid6421:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I nominated this page for deletion a year ago on the basis that it's essentially superfluous and redundant. That nomination was closed as no consensus. In the intervening year since then, the page has become orphaned and receives almost no attention. I am again nominating it for deletion for the same reasons -- all of the founder members of the league are noted as such inFA Premier League and all this article is is a short summary of each team with their recent news, all of which is encapsulated in the teams' respective articles. There's no point to this page.howcheng{chat}20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. It is a self-promotion article, and it is a yet-to-be-released RPG. It's not notable as it is right now (1 G-hit), and there's no point in speculating its notability right now. --Nishkid6421:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. You get 307 hits for "Henry Donselman" on Google, hardly a number I would have in mind for someone notable in a certain medical field. He's not any different than other doctors. --Nishkid6423:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Can I humbly request that the Wilderness, Armour and Weaponry articles are not listed for AFD until such a time as their contents (or at least the subject matter) has been rewritten for the Combat article. A lot of RS articles did need to go or be swiftly merged, but we're reaching a point of unsustainable deletions and risking information loss and the frustration of those who have been wrestling with these articles for months on end. Progress is all good, but these things are going to need some time.QuagmireDog01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for fancruft and game guides. Look at the fancruft notice on the talk page. "Lengthy, detailed descriptions of items." is not allowed. Who wants to explain to me why there are "magic-related armour" and "magic-related weapons" sections?Audacious One04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the relevant information (of which there was little) has now been transferred to theRuneScape combat article. This article and the others which could be merged into combat have had a lot of time and effort expended on them. The result is a series of polished game-guides which repeat what is readily available on fan sites without as much pertinent info but in a much more readable format. It would be a lot easier to build up fewer articles with the slices of relevant material added from articles to be deleted. Servicing such a number of highly editted articles has proven to take up vast amounts of time which could be spent actually elevating the needed articles. I struck through my previous vote, now that it comes down to the wire I see nothing but a helpful introduction (merged) and a stack of NN.QuagmireDog13:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- No explanation has been offered as to how the deletion of this article will improve Wikipedia. Runescape itself can serve as a reference to satisfyWikipedia:Verifiability. Furthermore, this is not a game guide -- game guides provide advice and instruction on how to play video games, while this article mere treats magic in Runescape as a factual matter. There's no policy which prohibits the treatment of video games in considerable detail.John25403:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only content from Magic that isn't now contained in combat or explained in other articles is the needless list of weapons and armour. Information on the ins-and-outs of individual items is very easily obtainable from fansites or the RS knowledgebase and in a blunt format with all the stats which we cannot apply here anyway. At the time the AFD was listed these were not merged, and it's right to stand back and look it again, as your comment encouraged me to do. Now that the other information is merged, the article has carried out its purpose and becomes part of the combat article which in time can be built up to a high-standard. Despite all this, it would have been better if this information was merged properly and time was given to that process before the AFD process began. If one of the other articles which could be merged to combat is listed to AFD before that process is done, I shall be voting keep to stop this running around.QuagmireDog15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that ^ I have added more material from Magic intoRuneScape combat, rewriting a lot of it, and will continue to do so tomorrow (a little sleep would go a long way). I'm hoping this will prove satisfactory to all parties.QuagmireDog00:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not spam at all. Should stay. I put it up so people could see about Firecold. I did not tell them to come over to Firecold itself. This is not spam. So what is it has a high rating. It is still good!Medos10:22, 01 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please don't take offense, Medos, this discussion isn't about whether your site is good or not. It's about whether Wikipedia is the appropriate place for what you've written. We are first and last, anencyclopedia, which means we're not a forum, discussion group or place to promote your favorite website or web forum. Subjects have to meet a high standard of notability to be included in an encyclopedia.Akradecki12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as per above. One of my daughter's favorite stores, but that doesn't qualify it to be included in an encyclopedia!Akradecki22:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "stores throughout California, Arizona, and Nevada". Not notable outside of the Western United States = notable in the Western United States. Just verify, that's all. -CrazyRussiantalk/email18:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure how this failsWP:CORP. Looks like a company that verifiably has 50 stores in the Western USA. Store addresses on the company web page are enough verifiability needed for that fact. --Samirधर्म05:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasdelete, as requested by author on article
Delete as OR. There's a number of unsourced quotes in the text, and without citations, this cannot be considered encyclopedic.Akradecki22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article has been tagged {{notverified}} sinceOctober 2005. A comment added to the article (rather than talk) states that the subject is not included in theOxford Dict. of Celtic Mythology. The results in Google books are unpromising[39][40]. As noted at the article talk, the name itself is improbable (Dubglas orDubhglas are possible). The web results are plentiful enough, but there is no reliable source for the information here, or in the related articles.Scáthach already contains the smergable material from this article and the related nominations. Fails tocite any sources, let alonereliable ones, and so fails to meet the requirement forverifiability. As it hasn't been fixed in almost a year, I see no reason to believe that it ever will be. Accordingly, I suggest that adelete is in order.Angus McLellan(Talk)22:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to nominate the following articles with the same rationale :-
Delete all, but without prejudice No sources given means that these fail WP:V, but if deleted, I suggest the closing admin to add a note to that effect in the deletion logs, so if referenced articles about these topics do get created, they don't get accidently G4'd. Regards, 22:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. Although Inghean Bhuidhe, for instance, looks like it's probably genuine, no sources have been provided despite a long-standing request. So, unless verification is given, wiki can't take the chance of misinforming people or even propping up a hoax.Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)23:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is OK by me. The closest reference to any of the "saints" I could find was St. Lasar, a nun at Clonard, 6th cent., March 29, on the calendar of my own church (Celtic Catholic Church) And that just ain't close enough. --Sean Lotz01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong keep - this is a good reference list. Referring to the user's concerns (probably about ISBNs), it reflect the widely accepted tradition on Wikipedia whereby ISBNs should be noted when possible. --Ynhockey(Talk)22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a shopping guide, as mentioned above, including the ISBN is standard for anything where you are listing books. Further, we don't anywhere link to a location where you could buy the books, it's clearly not advertising. --tjstrf00:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As this list itself makes perfectly clear if you look at it, when manga is published separately, it is published in a series of volumes, certainly not as separate chapters. That's why the list is divided into volumes, see? And why the ISBNs are per volume, not per chapter? Sorry, but this listis like listing every chapter in the Harry Potter series, and as such is pointless detail. A list ofvolumes would make sense, but this should bedeleted. —HaelethTalk11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. I mentioned several multi volume works in the above list of titles. The Hakkenden is a 106 volume work. There are also works like Dickens'Great Expectations, which has a serial publication. We really don't need every single chapter of a manga like this. "Good reference" or not, it's listcruft. --Kunzite11:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The Hakkenden, as well as other serialized novels, sound like they could indeed use sorted chapter listings then. Indeed, the Hakkenden probably deserves an immense amount more detail than is currently given on it. (It doesn't even have character articles or basic plot overview) But we simply do not have enough interested editors, and the Hakkenden has little or no presence in English. It's a pity. --tjstrf19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.WP:NOT indescriminate collection of useless unencyclopedic cruft. The fact that other similar cruft exists is no reason to keep this one, "do as we say, not as we do" and all that.GarrettTalk01:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what I see this is no different from our widely accepted episode lists for TV shows, just for a different media (the original media for this work of fiction, no less). --Ned Scott09:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even knowing the article is a good reference and consulting it a lot of times myself, I must admit it's not exactly what is worth of an enciclopedia article (I'm not very sure if any manga should have an article besides the main one, but that's another thing). -Access Timeco01:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Ugh, please don't summarize every single chapter. A chapter-by-chapter exposition of a series, nowthat's cruft. --tjstrf19:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as spam. These are notable sites, certainly, but this isn't even the start of a decent article. Title wouldn't even make a good readirect.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind22:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Non-notable, and failsWP:BIO. He's an amateur golfer at best, and although there are some champion amateur golfers, he's not one of the top. --Nishkid6423:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a notch below what I would consider as notability for amateur golfers. The stuff about belly dancing and situps is nonsense, both cannot be true.MLA09:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Catchpole (on a trivial note, the situps and belly dancing factoids were referenced frequently duringtelevision coverage, and it rather seems that the former, at the very least, is accurate; of course, that's altogether irrelevant to the notability discussion...).Joe04:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might be a little late here, but seems like the admins haven't closed it yet and are waiting for a few more people to comment on this. I agree with Nishkid64. He isn't notable enough to meet wikipedia standards despite his achievements.zephyr2k17:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Catchpole. Finalists in the United States Men's Amateur Golf Championship are surely notable, much more so than inanimate sticks of carbon which made one-time appearances in an episode of The Simpsons. ;-)RFerreira20:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The US Amateur runner-up gains entry into the next year's US Open, and usually gets an invitation to the Masters as well. For the next year at least, he'll be one of the more notable amateur golfers.Carl Lindberg13:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. "Upcoming" and "currently producing debut album" are two signs that this band is not and may never be notable.—EdGl23:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This one probably should be speedied, but I sent it here only because it made an (unverified and dubious) claim of notability. The prod tag was removed without comment. It appears to be nothing more than a vanity article about a sporting event between college buddies.OhNoitsJamieTalk23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Makes me rather embarrassed to have been at school (and yes, despite the name of the venue, it's a school rather than a college in the American sense) with some of these "players".BigHaz00:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please address any of the following to argue for this article to be kept:WP:NOT (WP:NFT being related),WP:V and/orWP:N. Currently there is no proof whatsoever that the article passes any of these, and a fair amount of proof that it fails them.BigHaz07:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grace period. Allow the editors of this article to address the issues.ChibiWong
That's what AfD is here for. The article was nominated on August 31 and debate remains open until 5 days later. That sounds like a grace period to me.BigHaz09:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no references to this in Ebbsco's Australia and New Zealand media database nor are any reliable sources cited. I suspect that none exist.Capitalistroadster01:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Actually, those two pages are for different championships; the article you're nominating is for theWWE Championship, while the article you're comparing it to is for theother world title in WWE, referred to as just theWorld Heavyweight Championship. They're completely separate championships, and thus their information should not be merged. –NeoChaosX [talk |contribs]02:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep please readWP:LISTs if you don't understand the point of lists. Categories arenot the same as lists. SinceBox set has an article, List of box sets cannot reasonably be argued to be listcruft. Essentially, nominator has advancedno rational for deletion, nor can I see any. No policy, guideline or proposal even suggests we should delete useful, encyclopaedic content, so I have to suggest we keep it.WilyD13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, there are times when lists are more helpful than categories, but this isn't one of them. If you are simply looking for examples of box sets, the category is fine. If you are looking for box sets by a specific artist, this list would not be as helpful as, say, the artist's discography either here or elsewhere. It is very unlikely that somebody looking to fill in gaps in albums would choose to do so by filling in missing box sets as opposed to, say, missing albums from a particular artist or time period. Also, please note that there is very little tying these sets together except that they are multiple discs packaged as box sets. This list does not help to explicate anything about box sets, nor could it. That is why it is not, in my opinion, "useful, encyclopaedic content."GassyGuy18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In essence, though, what you're arguing here is that this is astub quality list, and that merely being a stub is a criterion for deletion. It isn't. If you look atWikipedia:Featured lists you'll see plenty of lists that meet all of the quantitative complaints you've voiced here, yet been elevated to featured status simply because they're better developed.WilyD19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attempt to tell me what my argument is. My argument is not that this is a stub - my argument is that it serves no purpose that the category does not serve, and that not only does it not help to explicate on the concept of box sets (which, if it did, would give it some merit as an article), but that it couldnever help to explicate that concept.That is my argument.GassyGuy22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
19:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Canæn