The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete or Move to wikidictionary not sure if would be suitable for the dictionary or not (not familiar with the trends there) but in either case, it doesn't belong here (dicdef). Fallsend23:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Either extremely nonnotable or hoax... Google cannot find any mention of this person or his supposed short story, idea that it might be a pen name of Bram Stoker doesn;t go with the fact that a photo is presented, photo of this individual has false source information listed (link there for origin of photo goes to someone else entirely), claim of being Jack the Ripper means he'd be listed on one of the comprehensive lists of 200+ suspects that exist, and he doesn't. This is either not real or bizarre original research on a nonnotable figure, but I'm going for hoax. Also, please include the subarticle Legend of the danat about this supposed short story the alleged Abraham wrote as part of this vote. DreamGuy07:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
*Speedy delete (winces), a dab page pointing to two red links (and nothing else) is a speedy candidate as containing no content as far as I'm concerned. Prototc15:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep not a valid speedy deletion candidate as it has more than "no content". It lists two high schools with the name, and their locations.--Nicodemus7515:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I was about to go ahead and delete it. If you want addresses, use the Yellow Pages. The page is a dab, but it does not disambiguate articles, which is what dab pages are for. Further, having the "information" that there are two schools with the name is utterly useless. If we really, really, really want to make sure that someone can find out that there are schools by that name, put the information in the "Schools of Ottowa" article. If there isn't one, make one, but don't argue that broken pointers to non-existent places are "content." Geogre15:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disambiguation pages with no existing articles have always been accepted, and we have many thousands of them. There is no obligation for disambig pages to have content, because they are not articles. - SimonP16:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated it for speedy deletion, and SimonP just removed the tag. I firmly believe this should be speedily deleted, as should any and all other dab pages that disambiguate between nothing, and nothing (i.e., pointless). Geogre put it better than me. Failing this, my vote is delete. Prototc16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These have always been standard practice. A disambig is not an article, it is a technical page that has no need for content. Why wait for one of the articles to be created, then have to move it, and disambiguate all the incoming links. The red links should not be pointing to the same place, even if that place doesn't contain an article. Over the years I've literally created hundreds of these pages, and they have never before been deleted. The various missing encyclopedia articles projects in particular tend to generate hundreds of these pages. - SimonP16:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as having no content, just like I'd vote to speedy delete any disambiguation that, as Proto puts it, "disambiguate between nothing, and nothing". I can't recall any times this was tested previously on AfD off-hand, although I'm sure there have been such times, so I can but go with what I think. Lord Bob16:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to keep as a now-valid disambiguation, even if it does disambiguate between two (shudder) school articles. Disambiguation between bad things is still valid disambiguation! Lord Bob22:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP. Delete voters please have a little more consideration for the value of other contributors' time. Kappa17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Perfectly good disambiguation page. I would remind other editors that we're building an encyclopedia, and the game of "pick an article at random and try to think of an excuse to delete it" is not compatible with that aim. --Tony SidawayTalk18:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think a dab page with redlinks warrants an AfD (there are plenty of geographical dab pages. many of which contain nothing but redlinks). I think such dab pages simply reflect a request to have pages created about those subjects, and also provide a useful service by having properly-titled pages ready for editing. However, the point is moot in this case since the dab page now contains no redlinks. Mindmatrix20:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP, but would just say to Kappa and Tony Sidaway that there's no need to attack the nomination in this case, which seems to me entirely good-faith and reasonable. And we've certainly clarified a useful piece of policy here, today. AndyJones01:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete seems to be a band with a very similar name to this (Avkshum) name on AMG but it isn't the band in this article. Band in this article is not notable per nom. --W.marsh21:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Woohoo, it's even a blatant copyvio from the site linked in the article. Which says "copyright, all rights reserved" at the bottom, so we know we're not allowed it on Wikipedia, whatever the contributor will inevitably come and try to claim. ;) Delete as quickly as possible. — HaelethTalk23:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
After considering this debate carefully, I have come to a conclusion that consensus exists to delete this article. If Andkon wishes to write about (him/her)self, (s)he can create a user page. Denelson8302:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE: Article protected from further edits during this AFD since personal attacks were made on it.
Vanity article for non-notable site owner/blogger/forum poster. Site has an Alexa rank of 195,916, he's been involved in flamewars, okay, but I don't see any media attention or anything to support notability. W.marsh00:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NOT A VANITY PAGE I am "The Reverend", also known as Reverend Bijhan Al-Attack. My website is http://reverend.andkon.com. I am a fan-turned-friend of Andkon, but not Andkon himself, and I wrote the article. That disqualifies this as a vanity page. Popular Enough Also, I discovered him through a search engine, but he is linked through collegehumor.com and metafilter.com, both popular and established sites. His own stat counters, as he informs me, have counted on the arcade page he has recorded 10,000 unique visits a day, in contrast to the Alexa rank. As for his involvement in flamewars, that is a political issue, not to be judged by his worthiness as a wikipedia article. We have the whore that Hugh Grant slept with on this site, Andkon is hardly a misuse of space.
I'm sure everyone in here is familiar with what non-notable is since I'm the only one here who runs a website that exceeds the ten thousand mark on a daily basis. Since no one here is able to quit college because of earning money from a website, no wonder everyone is so familiar with what non-notable is. And considering Alexa is rated malicious spyware by Norton and Spybot, I'm not exactly sure what such a low-standard is being used on Wikipedia. Oh yes, this is Andkon himself.
Not able to quit college? Andkon, I think a lot of your arguments are pretty fair and you raise some good points. However, you are a little presumptive in this opinion re: college and notability. Believe me, Wikipedia users come from all backgrounds: different age groups, different countries, different sexes, different races and, needless to say, differing socio-economic groups. We don't all need to run websites such as yours in order to be able to quit college and, in any case, some of us left "college" a long time ago! Marcus2211:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who ever set this up for delete has issues.Andkon is a site with nearly 700 arcade games all free and without pop-ups or anything malcious. Not only that it features a webcomic that as spanned over 100 issues and is constantly in updation. To say this site is insginificant is quite ignorant. This is site is so popular that the author of it can actually make a living off of it out of ad revenue alone. If this site where to actually be deleted you would also need to delete almost every other article entry that is about a website. This article in fact, was not even done by Andras, but by a friend. Every single reason to delete this site is unfounded and/or horrbly incorrect. This is a joke and stains what Wiki really is. DrunkCat18:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete every article about a website, too, for that matter. WP is not a web guide. The criterion for inclusion is not "pays its way," but, instead, "is much discussed by second and third hand parties, has a large effect on the world around it." It may be pleasant, fun, well done, etc., and yet it is just another website for all of that. Geogre18:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there seems to be some new-to-wikipedia people here and that's fine. Wikipedia is not just your private webhost, the only articles that are supposed to be here are ones which are notable. A good guideline of what that means is Wikipedia:Websites, which clearly this site does not pass. 10,000 hits a day is about enough for a 200,000 rank on Alexa... based on experience (2 million daily pageviews is about a rank of 1,500 for example). Ultimately there are millions of sites as popular as this one. Sorry. --W.marsh19:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this from Wikipedia. This is not a 'best of the web' site. If it was, Ankon.com would not feature.
Keep: This site is beneficial to a lot of people. Considering he gets hundreds of thousands of page hits, its a unique site. Considering the number of pages that only contain a single line or a reference that could easily be tied into another topic, at least this is a special, independent, stand-alone article.
Non-Notable? Hey, I have an idea, lets be mean and ignore the facts and label this article as non-notable despite Andkon having an arcade with over 700 games with no pop-ads or malcious coding and having enough unique hits to gain a living from the money of ad revenue alone. Please make up another faux excuse to delete this site for this one is clearly wrong. DrunkCat19:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad people enjoy the site, and kudos to the builders for making something that people like. But mildly successful businesses are not automatically notable; otherwise we'll have to list every sandwich shop and convenience story in the country. To change my vote, you'll need to come up with press clippings, Webby nominations, or an Alexa ranking two orders of magnitude higher. A more collegial and reasonable tone from pro-keep partisans would be nice, too. --William Pietri20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Webby Awards is nothing but a get-rich scheme. Registration to be considered costs money and can be done by the website's owner. It's lovely see WP using spyware and get-rich schemes as standards. The corporate run media can't be trusted to report correctly on an elementary school science fair, so unfortunately I haven't been able to buy my way into newspapers through PR firms. Andkon20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I find the proposed alternative standard (that the site makes money and has a few ardent fans) unpersuasive and unverifiable. Best of luck in becoming notable, but so far I'm going by WP:WEB, Google's count of incoming links, and the other markers I mentioned. The world may not be properly honoring your talent and effort, but Wikipedia's not the place to fix that. --William Pietri21:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable question. I can't find the policy, but you can see that the strong consensus is to keep all recognized places, no matter how small. My theory is that the legal and social recognition of cities and towns means that the world has formally noted them, and that they're therefore notable here. You might reasonably feel this is inconsistent, in which case I'd encourage you to lobby for a change in policy on notability of small towns. But WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and WP:CORP, like WP:WEB, are all pretty clear: existence isn't enough for notability; you have to really stand out from the crowd. --William Pietri23:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With almost a million entries, it'd be nice to see Wikipedia getting a bit more organized. I'd personally prefer a system *without* anonymous edits and semi- to fully-professional editors with anonymous/registered users only flagging for changes and entries. Under such a scheme I wouldn't get in but with a million entries I insist on having my part of the pie. If Nowheresville, USA gets in for absolutely no reason, I'm not sure why I or other like me shouldn't. I mean are you people saying all of the almost million are all more noteworthy than Andkon. You must be kidding, right? I'm pretty certain I have a bigger following than this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_Ali_bin_Al-HusseinAndkon00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would also be an interesting way to run things, and if you think a site like that would be better, you should start it. Under Wikipedia's license, you can even start with the all the current Wikipedia content. I'm sorry that you're upset, and if you think you have found articles that don't meet the current criteria for inclusion, you should nominate them for deletion as well. Regards, --William Pietri02:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"This page is a *proposed* Wikipedia policy, guideline, process, or informational page." So you got an established guidelines? Andkon00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is getting out of hand. Signed votes have been made by unbiased voters, unsigned votes by blatent sockpuppets/fans/etc. typically get very little weight so you're wasting your time. If you want to argue about the criteria for website notability, I think there is an open discussion linked to on the daily AfD page. --W.marsh19:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Marsh, please don't slander like that. None of my reason are bias period. I'd love for you to point out where I deviated from facts and stats to show me where I was bias. If you want to delete this site for your own bias reason then I think this entire page should be voided. Oh hey, lets ignore the fact how long this article's been up too. DrunkCat19:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Truth: Fans, yeah that's one thing a popular site would expect. Sockpuppets? None. The IP of beneficial comment is a friend from the same college I'm finishing the semester at, who also added the new hilarious but still correct bio on the front. LOL :-) Andkon19:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are missing the point. If you think those pages d=on't meet the relevant criteria, you can nominate them for deletion. You have exactly the same edit rights in Wikipedia as I do. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] :: AfD?10:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Double Standards? The Wikipedia self-appointed Death Squad should also kill the pages for Limecat and that weird Hello My Future Girlfriend. Both have terrible Alexa ranks. Andkon02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have missed the point. You have exactly the same rights in Wikipedia as I do - there is nothing stopping you nominating those other pages for deletion if you have good reason to believe they fail to meet the relevant criteria. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] :: AfD?22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't care if Limecat or whatever the hell else has its own page. But if they do, I want to be held to the same standards. So far, I've been told that my website doesn't confirm to "proposed" guidelines which are "not policy." That's like breaking a law before it's made. Andkon00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a government; it's a wiki. The guidelines are extracted from many discussions like this one. After a long process applying them and seeing how they work, they become so uncontroversial that we call them policy. (This is basically how the Internet developed, so there's some precedent.) If you have some reason to change the proposed policies besides not liking them, then by all means go to their talk pages and propose changes. Or if you have some first-principles argument about why this should stay despite not matching criteria that have been working for us otherwise, please do make it. Honest, this isn't some vast conspiracy against you; if you look at the other AfDs on the same day as yours, you'll see that dozens of things get deleted as non-notable every day under similar criteria. --William Pietri16:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant enough website, gets 41,000 google hits, I'm not going to be biased against it just because the webowner's buddy is here defending it. HGB00:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that's exciting for you, but I can't see why that would be a better standard than the other ones mentioned on WP:BIO or WP:WEB. Sorry. If you're very excited about keeping this content, have you considered moving it to your user page? --William Pietri18:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I'd hate to get famous and listen to all negative comments like "seems to be notable and batshit insanity is not a criteria for deletion." It's not about the content, I could easily print ten thousand copies and post it all over the city if I really wanted to. It's the part where Wikipedia has room for a million entries but not me? Ridiculous. Andkon19:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We don't seem to be making any progress here, Andkon. I think your position is clear, and I've tried hard to explain Wikipedia's position to you. If you have any more questions, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll do my best to answer them. Best of luck in your efforts. --William Pietri19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that would be a better standard, go propose it, although personally I'd argue against it. But it wouldn't matter, as a rank of 53,069 is still not notable. And even if it were, that would only merit adding a page for your site, rather than for you personally. At this point, Andkon, everybody else has moved on, and the consensus is pretty clear. I've just stayed in hopes of educating you and your pals. If there's something you want to understand (as opposed to argue about) then ask me on my talk page. I'm moving on, and hope you will too. --23:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quitting college just to be spit on elsewhere. Upon deletion of the article, I can confidently give WP the Andkon guarantee that the next time we'll have this discussion I'll have the support of a cybermob numbering in the triple digits which by itself will warrant a few articles. Andkon00:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also interesting to note is that at least three people, none of whom I know, edited my heroic biography before the Death Squad decided it was wasting space. Did any of these people take anything away? No, they fixed minor things and *added* the article to category pages. It's very hard to get a fair hearing when the people doing the deleting are self-appointed using vague and unapproved standards. Andkon00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'NOT A WEBSITE PAGE' People keep complaining that this is a "best of the web" page. It's not even about a website, it's about a man named Andras Konya, who commonly goes by Andkon. He notable not only as a webmaster, but also as an activist in the Mozilla community. The page is not vanity, because it was written by me, The Reverend, who is not only a distinct person but also more than 2,500 miles away from Andkon, and it can be proven by the logs of the editing of the article. The reverend01:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: outcast not activist. As you'll remember, the idiot savants at Mozilla refused to take that Mozfest idea, which of the same technique of guess/check has doubled/tripled my ad revenue. But in my glory days I was being headlined every other month on Mozillazine (and thus on the bottom of the front of Mozilla.org). Oh well. Andkon01:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, per well-written nomination (pity about the vote at the end). Newyorktimescrossword, please note that this article does not meet the speedy criteria. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love NWN and I've played the server several times. It's a cool server, but in no way is this appropriate encyclopedic material. It's simply not notable enough among the general public, or even among the greater canopy of NWN players.--Isotope2314:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Simply describes a type of throw in Ultimate Frisbee... I don't see how that deserves it's own page. No other throws have pages. This also seems like a hardly ever used neologism. W.marsh00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page. Posted merely as a joke based on discussion on rec.sport.disc.JH
Delete Please do not merge this into the Ultimate page, it's just a silly neologism for an already existing frisbee throw which is not nearly important enough to be listed on the page for Ultimate. (I'm not a wiki editor, just an ultimate player)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
alleged movie, possible hoax or vanity. Cannot verify with IMDB, only Google result whatsoever is the Wikipedia article. Unless the movie's existance can be verified somehow, I don't see how it's notable. W.marsh06:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another orphan find. Claims to be a recently invented RPG, has no published books or anything as far as I can tell. Official site seems to be dead, I can't even find anything to verify that this RPG exists, let alone is notable, on google. Unverifiable, probably non-notable if verifiable due to scarcity of information/interest. (lots of google results for Archipel because it's a common word, but few meaningful for 'Archipel roleplay' W.marsh15:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was 'Redirect -03:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Talk about your blatant ads... I've never heard of this mp3 player. Current article is unacceptable... if someone really wants to rewrite go for it. But I don't think we owe them a quality article just because they spammed Wikipedia. W.marsh15:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, hate to do this but I've made it just a redirect to Archos (an article in need of attention itself). I guess this is a plausible search term. I wouldn't object to closing this AfD... sorry. --W.marsh15:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete speculative, spam and non-notable. And I'm sure the writer will be hugely annoyed that I've expunged the linkspam from it (no, I don't think it really needed the name of the site as an external link at least once per paragraph). Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] :: AfD?20:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non-notable musician. I can't even find anything on Google about him. Claims 5 'underground' releases and is allegedly starting a label, that seems to fail the WP:Music guidelines since he isn't on a notable label. W.marsh18:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
106 hits on google are either mirrors of WP article or just confirm what article says. I don't see how being a "freedom fighter" (or whatever you wanna call it) and dying are notable by themselves, and that's all I can find about this guy. We don't have articles for most suicide bombers, for example. W.marsh21:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While this could be a fascinating site, it has no alexa rank [2], little google coverage, no media coverage (that I can find) and does not seem notable based on that. Current article also seems to be an ad, though I can't tell that the site is a commercial site. Also, article was added by creator of the website in question, apparently. W.marsh23:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Response from creator of the askEd wikipedia entry: Everything W. Marsh wrote is essentially correct. However, the demo which the entry refers to is a bona-fide working system which is non-commercial and is the result of university research that attempts a very different approach to automatic question answering. The system was also a participant this year in the annual Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) Question Answering evaluation. It differentiates itself from other systems in 2 fundamental ways: (1) by offering input in English, Japanese, Chinese, Russian and Swedish which no other system does, and (2) by providing short answers to questions, not sentences or text snippets as other systems do. In that sense I believe it is of interest to anyone researching question answering systems or the field in general. Moreover, the demo itself serves the additional purpose of data collection for furthering the field of automatic question answering as a whole and for providing a comparison of the state-of-the-art with other systems. I tried to facilitate such comparisons by including links to other demos of similar systems on the web (including commercial systems) and for some of which there are also existing Wikipedia entries. (Presumably those entries are not suggested for deletion because they are already reasonably well-established sites, I don't know.) Incidentally, no one has so far objected to a link to the demo placed on the main Wikipedia question answering page (a much higher profile page) so would you also argue for the deletion of that link or is it that the site itself simply does not warrant an entry at this stage? Would the proponents for deletion consider an argument for moving the page or expanding it rather than deleting it? Is there anything in particular they would like to see about the system's workings to justify the entry's existence? Do they have a stronger argument for deletion other than that there is little other media coverage? Because while W. Marsh's observations about the site's low profile are correct there is a somewhat vicious circle here in that because the site is new, Google does not give the main site a high ranking so correspondingly the traffic to the site is also low. If there is a Wikipedia policy for deleting entries that nobody knows about then I guess I have to concur. But in that case, it would be nice to see a larger number of people arguing for deletion with an explanation so that one can judge at which point a site does warrant a Wikiedia entry. I think contributors both for and against should also state their credentials to argue for and against deletion since their decisions necessarily affect many other people.
Lastly, I have had a fair number of readers of the Wikipedia entry go on to try the system and while I realise this is not an argument for the entry in the first place I believe it is an argument for the site's relevance to the question answering community and therefore to Wikipedia. Ed Whittaker
Please feel free to comment on my comments as I'm obviously interested to understand your objections better to see if they can be resolved without deleting the Wikipedia entry. 12 November 2005
Come on you guys! I don't know whether you're paranoid about spam pages or what but I am genuinely trying to understand what the issue is here and you're not helping. I am relatively new to Wikipedia so my request is genuine. Drini has clearly edited many pages according to his website but these "delete per nom" comments smack of arrogance. If you delete the page fair enough but please try to justify your decision with a few more words. Besides if you write a bit more you can try to convince other people that you are right can't you? Ed whittaker12:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. This isn't a discussion. This is a battle of my long-winded requests for clarification as a new user against unhelpful busybodys' "delete per nom" statements. A waste of everyone's time so delete the entry and delete these [[3]] [[4]] too. Ed whittaker06:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Probable hoax article. Google only finds the Wikipedia article. Only linked to from Khoi Vo which was created on the same day and has since been deleted as a "hoax; bs bio of an nn Vietnamese student". Delete. Geoff/Gsl04:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ludicrous: Factual errors galore, basic logic loopholes, no google hits or evidence of happening. -- МиборовскийU|T|C|E04:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as unverifiable. If I started in 1880, I'm pretty sure I could have just as many descendants with no unreasonable effort. Saberwyn07:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as non-notable. I got more hits on Google and verified that this person exists... but I'm not seeing that just being a doctor somewhere is particularly notable. --W.marsh06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
These Besford Kosova-related articles are about a Kosovar inventor and the many weapons systems, airplanes, and life forms he has invented. Hoax. Delete. — PhilWelch20:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree unless evidence can be cited to the contrary. It is also possible that it is a notable hoax, and should be included as such, though that seems unlikely. Dsol20:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was
delete. BTW, what this user was describing was simply a pair of sunglasses that clip on to a pair of prescribed glasses. Denelson8302:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete lack of context; probably has a name, but is a dicdef (sort of) anyway... maybe is a request for an article on a part of glasses...? jnothmantalk07:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopaedic, would be better of deleting and starting from scratch if we ever get an article on this phenomenon. It's not patent nonsense, Ifnord. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I perceive here is a badly executed article request by someone who wants to know what these things are, and couldn't find them in Wikipedia because he didn't know what they were called. Unfortunately, his description isn't very clear and I can't figure out what he's referring to. It is not a trial frame or phoropter. Most likely, he is describing a kind of very cheap, disposable sunglasses that are nothing more than stamped plastic sheet of clear, dark grey plastic. They have no frames, hinges, or temples so they cost very little. They are placed underneath a regular pair of glasses and rely on the regular glasses to hold them in place. Eye doctors sometimes offer them to patients to wear on leaving the office after their eyes have been dilated. The only thing is, these don't fold. Hey, Edwardian, any thoughts? Dpbsmith(talk)00:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Dpbsmith. There are some that fold and some that do not. I've added a comment to Sunglasses about "various disposable sunglasses" to clarify what the original author to this article had in mind. Edwardian00:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: It doesn't even parse as a set of sentences. "Dictdef" is the reasoning. (Or could a blarticle be a small piece of a blart?) Geogre16:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Impossible title, and the person described in the article appears to have left no trace of his albums. Otherwise, he's a teacher. There are lots of those. Geogre16:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn-bio. Subject has a blog wherein he states his two albums are almost ten years old (likely self-produced). He has no AMG entry as a musician. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Revert to unvandalised version and keep
Non-notable, not on IMDB, has made amateur movies but that's about it. No media coverage, nothing to indicate he's notable. DeleteW.marsh06:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Even that edit had the vanity nn bio in it too, but I've removed that and reverted to the previous apparently notable version. As far as I'm concerned this could be closed now. --W.marsh07:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nothing to be done here, then. You want redirects for deletion. Personally, though, I don't see why it needs to go. Like 24.17.48.241 said, it's a common misspelling. Jacqui★05:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. This article, as Jacqui pointed out, belongs on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Further, it won't be deleted, because it's a useful redirect. Dsreyn, moving articles always results in leaving behind a redirect, and that's Almost Always a Good Thing. If someone got the name wrong when creating the article, someone else could easily get the name wrong when searching for it. Newyorktimescrossword, do you, uh, read the articles you vote to delete? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete unless anyone can convince me that this should not be part of a more general discussion of Buddhism in America. It's a very limited scope at present and much less useful than a wider-scoped article would be. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] :: AfD?11:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A separate discussion for a minority religion in a given state? That sort of granularity strands the information and disrupts the context considerably. At best this should be part of a Religion in Texas, but that should be part of Texas#Culture. What I read in this article looks like advertising, on the one hand, or proselytizing, on the other. For POV issues, as well as lack of definition of the topic, I don't agree at all with keeping, though we should be happy to have the author contribute to one of the larger articles with appropriate content in context. Geogre16:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As the author of this article I can provide written confirmation from everyone cited within the article as well as numerous published journal articles on findings concerning the Chapello. Simply because knowledge of this creature isnt within your limited knowledge of animals does not mean it is a hoax. The Chapello is a creature which has documented proof of existance from top researchers at top universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.139.108 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 05:14:45 UTC
Why are you so sure it is a hoax? Have you heard of every animal in existance, even those found in clandestine forests in the middle of jungles in 3rd world countries? If not then perhaps you would consider that this is a real animal who has simply had a dearth of information published about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.139.108 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 05:25:35 UTC
(Lord, why can't I ignore trollers/hoaxers?) This isn't a case of a panda or a platypus that some researcher has brought forth a carcass and no one believes them. There is nothing to substantiate your claim. Bring forth your evidence, I can't "prove" a negative. Ifnord05:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as speedy vandalism category of G3, which includes creating hoax articles. A Google search for Chappello returns 5 unique hits see [5] with no result relevant to the subject of the article so problems under WP:V in any case. No Google print and three Google scholar articles [6] with no relevant articles retrieved. There is simply no verifiable evidence for the existence of this animal so we cannot accept the article. It is up to authors to cite verifiable evidence in support of their articles and the author has not done so. Capitalistroadster05:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because the article uses "currently" twice in the same sentence, and I just can't accept that. BD2412T 23:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable unless a good verifiable reference, including the scientific name of the animal, is provided and verified prior to expiration of AfD. Source citation is a necessity whenever the factual accuracy of an article is suspect. Dpbsmith(talk)23:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Latin name: Lupus Hominum, and there is a literary device called anaphora, which has been employed by some of the greatest writers of all time, Homer and Vergil to name a notable two. Dont question my syntax when it isn't relevant.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Listed as non-notable CSD, but playing college basketball is enough of an assertion of notability for it to be a CSD. Listing here, no vote. — PhilWelch21:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think that playing college basketball alone is an assertion of notability. Most professions alone don't establish a claim of notability, and non-professional sports are at an even lower level. An assertion of notability would be winning a notable award (voted a College All-American, for instance), or being a member of a national championship team. 165.189.91.14822:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can only verify that a Charles O'Bannon played for UCLA who had a brother Ed, which would (a) be notable and (b) be completely contrary to most of the supposed facts in this stub. — PhilWelch02:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Charles was actually a professional basketball player, but his career in the NBA and the US was short-lived. He spent the vast majority of his career overseas. Not only that, but he went to UCLA, not Michigan where he was a crucial member of the NCAA title-winning team in 1995. Plus, the information on Ed O'Bannon is wrong too (I should know, I wrote most of the Ed-O article). I can probably take a stab at rewriting it later. I still have my Sports Illustrated collector's issue of the UCLA title. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I just did a quickie Google search and found no evidence of Charles dropping the "O" from his name. This article as it's written is completely bogus. Charles is alive and well and playing in Japan for Toyota Alvark. He's good enough for at least a stub, but at Charles O'Bannon. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, because nobody searching for Charles O'Bannon would use the name Charles Bannon (who was a real person -- the last person lynched in North Dakota). So deletion of this is warranted with a new article started in the correct location for Charles-O. And besides, the article as it stands is totally bogus anyway so not worth keeping. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete GameFAQs message boards are sufficient enough. Logan
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Remove the portions that are basically advertising for the International Chili Society and expand the article. This could turn into something genuinely interesting, like Barbecue. If the consensus is to delete, maybe a section could be added to the already substantial Chili con carne article. —HorsePunchKid→龜21:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I took the liberty of rewriting it. There is very little left of the original article, though I thought it was still worth noting the International Chili Society's substantial contributions to charity and such. So I'm going to change my expand vote to keep! —HorsePunchKid→龜04:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up and Keep. Chili cookoffs are common cooking competitions. While the current article is poor, it could be turned into an interesting article. Delete the ad parts and mark it for cleanup. -- JLaTondre03:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all! It was just fun to work on a little article like that for a while instead of fighting link spam and such. Also gives me some hope that I'm not a complete deletionist. :)—HorsePunchKid→龜20:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. RobertT | @ | C 04:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
===D-sak=== D-sak is a real skate crew of Yolo county. Yes the page is not written well but none the less it should be recognized. Don't delete D-sak!!
non notable, probably vandalism Arniep20:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone here should definately make a reputable page that we can all enjoy. I have a great idea, how bout one discussing the depths of Howchengs uncoolness. Sounds interesting.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Trivial stats for a creature in an online game. WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I vote deleteRJH21:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP (and overwhelmingly, at that). BD2412T 06:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
No vote. Several users at Talk:Daniel Brandt, expressed a desire to renominate this for deletion, with the subject of debate being Mr. Brandt's notability. I'll let someone who actually wants it deleted argue for its deletion; I'm just setting up the renom. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD Summary This article was nominated for deletion a few days ago. After about two days there were 22 Keeps and 3 deletes. Of those deletes, one was Daniel Brandt, one was an anonymous IP making a first edit, and the third was an IP that has only ever edited Daniel Brandt and one other article. jucifer23:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I purposefully did not link that AFD, since I agree that it was largely about not allowing Brandt to control the article on himself. This AFD is at the request of FRS, who would have listed this himself had he known how to do a renom. Given that FRS is not a Brandt sock (I assume Brandt isn't placing sleeper agents on WP ;D), I don't think the desire to prevent Brandt from controlling WP's coverage of himself isn't really relevant. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Google Watch was all he was known for, I would support a merge or delete. However, I consider his history of activism, his creation of NameBase, and his work with the likes of Philip Agee and publications like Covert Action Quarterly equally if not more important than his quixotic anti-google crusade. With that said, I support letting this VFD run its full course so there is clear and undeniable consensus for a keep we can point to if this issue comes up again. Gamaliel22:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable individual by any of wikipedia's criteria. No question about this. Brandt's desire not to have an article about himself on wikipedia is of no consequence IMHO. He has no greater right to edit the article than anyone else (arguably - perhaps less); therefore he has no greater right to have the article deleted than anyone else (arguably - perhaps less). jucifer22:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fbow, I DO think that the wishes of the subject of an article should be taken into account where the the subject's notability is marginal and the subject's views are ascertainable. If the subject is truly a non-public person (not quite the same as non-notable, I suppose) and wishes to remain so, I don't believe we have the right to splash information about him/her on WP, even information that might be true and veriable (e.g., someone is sued or loses a nn lawsuit). Here, it's (to me anyway) a close question whether Brandt is enough of a public/notable figure that we can feel free to disregard his wishes.FRS23:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - if it's a case of borderline notability, there's every reason to respect the subject's wishes (as a sort of casting vote). Rd232talk23:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject of this article is only marginally notable, and most of what notability does exist arises from what is essentially a current dispute in which WP and (more recently) several editors/admins are involved. The subject of the article vigorously objected to being the subject of an article (after trying unsuccessfully to control its content), and the disagreements rapidly escalated to his being indefinitely blocked. Given his marginal notability and the ongoing, current, dispute with WP, I think this article should be deleted. At least, the pros and cons of doing so should be fully aired. FRS22:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Since the last RfA I have seaached the web for content about Brandt. I'm no longer as confident that he is notable. His attacks upon me and others make me lean towards keep (to spite him), but I musn't let emotion cloud my judgment. Let it be known that I did not support the speedy keeping in the previous VfD. BrokenS23:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/merge with Google Watch. I don't think Brandt clearly passes an "average activist" test. I'm not convinced that Namebase is notable enough for its own entry, so his creation of it isn't enough; details on his involvement with various alternative publications are sketchy and the details we do have appear non-notably techy; his teaching of computer skills to a few fairly well-known people doesn't seem that notable. Does his involvement with the anti-Vietnam war whilst at university seem that significant? I don't think so. What's left is Google Watch, which again doesn't seem notable enough to justify a separate entry on its founder. It is a weird post-modern irony that at this point Brandt's attempts to delete his Wikipedia article (on the basis that he isn't notable) may be a significant factor in him being considerered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (at least by Wikipedians - probably not by your average man-in-the-street). But I would suggest that if this episode does have any wider significance then it could perhaps more relevantly be documented under Wikipedia. A delete/merge of this article (with Google Watch) would retain most notable material and be a reasonable outcome. Also, (post-modernism again) - the injunction on people to be careful about editing articles about themselves should also apply to articles where Wikipedia itself is covered; there's an obvious potential for bias of various types since almost by definition most Wikipedians are more favourably disposed towards Wikipedia than most non-Wikipedians. Rd232talk23:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed that once again, there is very little discussion, and instead merely assertion of the issue in question (notability). We have a reference to WP:BIO, but nothing there obviously covers Brandt. There are on that page also alternative tests that have been proposed, but these are not established as guidelines and it is not clear under which of these Brandt would fall in any case. People should also be careful not to confuse notability and verifiability. Rd232talk06:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very good reason for this second AfD and that is many believed the last AfD nomination to be bad faith and thus voted speedy keep. This AfD is definitely not bad faith. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - [7], [8], [9]. Even if he doesn't meet WP:BIO, I think he will still be verifiable in 10 years or so. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is (at least marginally) notable; I'm inclusionist enough to set the bar pretty low for this. His attempts to suppress the page only make Wikipedians more inclined to want to keep it to spite him, though this is a "base emotional reaction" that probably shouldn't go into the final decision. However, his silly and baseless legal threats would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that the American legal system is so screwed up that people can force others to spend huge amounts of money defending against baseless claims. But we shouldn't give in to such claims nevertheless; that would be letting the terrorists win! *Dan T.*00:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as before. It's simply not true that "most of what notability does exist arises from what is essentially a current dispute in which WP." Google Watch gives him the necessary significance for an article. (Also, be warned that Brandt is advising people to create meatpuppets to influence this vote). Superm401 | Talk05:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't seem to have had any noticeable success at this (recruiting meatpuppets), however, which ironically is an argument in favor of the non-notability of his sites; they don't even seem to have enough "friends" or "fans" to make a showing in an attempt to stuff the ballot box his way. Some others who have tried to suppress their own articles in similar fashion have at least managed to get a few supporters to show up. *Dan T.*15:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not going to vote one way or the other, except to point out that Daniel Brandt is at least as notable as several other people who have their own Wikipedia articles. As someone who objects to the notability of many such biographies, however, that's not necessarily an argument for keeping Brandt's article. I do want to encourage voters, however, to base their decisions here on whether they feel Brandt is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, on not on his behaviour here. Specifically, I sincerely hope that Wikipedia editors will not be intimidated by his legal posturing into deleting the article; neither would I want this article to be kept simply to spite Brandt for trying to have it removed. —Psychonaut09:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a related and interesting new case. In the court's order linked to that article, the judge applied Florida law to find the plaintiff was a public figure because "(1) a public controversy exists; (2) plaintiff played a central role in the controversy; (3) the alleged defamation was germane to plaintiff's involvement in the controversy." The court applied this rule to the defamation complaint, and then threw out the invasion of privacy complaint because it arose from the same publication. FRS18:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I don't get put on his list for this, but I ran a Nexis search and his name came back with a lot of media mentions. Therefore notable, therefore keep. --LV(Dark Mark)19:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The hilarious bit, of course, is that I don't think he would have been nearly as notable without his campaign at wikiwatch. Therefore, by his actions he has guaranteed notoriety. However, even his campaign regarding Google is notable in the Internet world. Jacqui★20:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well if he wasn't notable enough he sure is now. Pretty amusing stuff. The author not wanting an article about himself is certainly not a reason for deletion. chowells00:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He needs an article on him. He definitely fits the definition of public figure, at least on the internet (several independant news articles on him), has almost half a million results on google for his name, and operates several significant watch sites. And he needs to know that he can't push wikipedia around with legal threats and claims of conspiracy. Elyk53 06:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)(This was the first edit of Elyk53(contribs) Superm401 | Talk06:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Note: After having a CheckUser done on this user, it was revealed that it originated from the San Antonio area. Seeing that Daniel Brandt is located in San Antonio (see this, which I found using, you guessed it, Google), and those edits are the only edits this user has ever made, I bet that it was either Brandt or one of his friends. Sorry, Brandt. We throw out keep and oppose votes from any meat/sockpuppets. Linuxbeak | Talk01:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I knew something was up! I geuss when he saw how the voting was going, he decided that if he put in some fake votes for "keep" he could at least claim that the vote was rigged against him. Fabricating conspiracy theories - who would have thought it? Hmmm, maybe it is the CIA doublebluffing us. Or the freemasons. Or the WTO. Or the neocons. No, cummon thats just dumb - it has to be the mossad.
Keep The watchers must be watched. Also, he's funny. I'm looking forward to having this comment posted on [ħttp://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html]. // E2315:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, complaining to wikimedia and attempting to get information about yourself removed from wikipedia does not make you notable. That said, I think brandt is notable for other reasons. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not just that, I was referring to his one-man crusade against wikipedia, not to mention Google, sorry for not making myself clear. Obli22:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia is not self-referential. We don't have an article about editors only famous (or infamous) within WP (Jimbo, Angela, and a few others excluded. But they are in here for other reasons, not just WP).
delete who cares who this guy is? At most there should be a one para article. So much detail is senseless. He's not that notable. He's no Abbie Hoffman, nor is he a Peter Norton. Why are we bothering this guy? I say leave him be and delete or radically prune this article. If this ever becomes a public controversy, re: Wiki vs. Brandt, all kinds of kooks will come out of the woodwork. The last thing you want is the "fight the power" crowd starting to think that this Wiki is "the power" to be "fought". That would be terrible. Again I say, prolonging Brandt's anger will not accrue to the long term benefit of this wiki. Rex071404(all logic is premise based)20:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More notable than Cyrus (pronounced suh-ROOS). And since when did people decided whether there should be an encyclopedia article about them? Do you think Bill Gates authorized his wiki entry? - Hahnchen21:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems (at least a little) notable to me, at least enough so to keep. And it certainly is bizarre that he on one hand claims to be a private figure, and on the other hand publishes public sites like ħttp://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ -- which way does he want it? CarbonCopy21:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable Wikipedia critic. His ridiculous legal threat [10] is obviously moot so he poses little legal threat to Wikipedia — if he himself uses Wikipedia as a forum for legal threats, we can always ban him. Andrew pmk | Talk23:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's now notable, if nothing else, for being a major and public Wikipedia critic as per Obli. Oh, and I'm an admin, so does that mean the admin crusade can begin against me as well? :sigh: I look forward to being part of the hivemind. FCYTravis23:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and ban Daniel Brandt forever for legal threats. Oh, and put me on his hitlist of people to sue because I don't think he can dictate policy to Wikipedia over what we can or can't print. --Ryan Delaneytalk23:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
NN pastor of church, first three hits are wikipedia or wiki mirrors. Book is small scale and out of print, borderline, but likely does not pass WP:BIO
Delete: Standard credentials, really. His book's lack of success takes it out of the mix. Standard practitioners of any calling or profession are non-encyclopedic. I'm sure we wish him and his flock well. Geogre15:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable political activist. Apparently generated a tiny amount of very local news coverage, but I see no indication that Airhart is important beyond that. I vote to delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't of international importance, not national importance, and perhaps not of much importance to many people... but there are hundereds of people who have signed the petition in less than a month with litterally no publicity given to the event. Many people are aware of the situation and as such we should have an article on the person and/or the event (I first started looking for information in wikipedia and found none, which started my research). At least, that is my opinion... if it doesn't fit within the guidelines, please delete it; otherwise I vote to not delete --Zeroasterisk07:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This person seems to exist, and may even deserve a page, but the content is completely inappropriate at this point. Although in some ways it's fascinating in its details, with a non-linear, almost nonsensicsal, structure that is reminicant of the American Postmodernism movement in literature, the article offers no set of facts for a reader's understanding of the topic. Andicat01:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. Contributor could consider submitting to The New Yorker or a literary mag, but not appropriate for WP.—Gaffταλκ05:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Voters are reminded that "redirect and delete" is not a valid Vote in an AfD. All content in this article is in DVD or its see also section. 6 delete, 2.5 merge (merge=redirect). -Mysekurity05:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DVD and Delete. Dual-layer DVD burners exist, and newer Powerbooks have them, but they're far from the first computers to do so. --Zetawoof10:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete (discounting IPs). 02:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Hi Stevie... yeah definite vanity article here (original research too). Just some random punk house, I've even been to a few such places in Louisville and never heard of this one. --W.marsh06:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having been in close contact with many of the people that came through this place, and having never been there myself while it was around I would say that it served a very important function in not only Louisville, re: crimethinc convergence, but also the greater midwest. It served as a sort of underground railroad clearing house for political hobos who were moving from action to action in the midwest.
Keep I am the original author of this article. I am new to wikipedia, but trying to catch up. As I understand it, my page has been marked for deletion under WP:VAIN.
*KEEP I agree with what Electricz just said. I remember fort not portland. It was a good place that had shows there. I meet new friends and learned about anrcho culture. A culture previously keepen from me by an overbearing society. Fort Not Portland was a good place and needs to be remembered.
Given the current state of the article, I can understand this complaint. Its current incarnation mainly consists of what might be refered to as the "downfall of ft. not portland." It does not currently discuss the reasons that Ft. not Portland became an important establishment to people in Lousiville and throughout the United States. This was the Principled anarchist collective I hinted at in my original article but did not expand upon.
I wrote about this part of the history first for two reasons. First, This is the time period that I have the most direct knowledge regarding. Second, I hoped by posting this cursory information I could entice editors with more direct knowledge to expand the article.
Please understand that the article is only one day old, and has had only one major edit (its creation). I will enumerate why I do not believe this article qualifies as a vanity article: 1) I was only a one-time guest at ft not portland, and thus do not consider myself directly related to it. 2) Part two of WP:VAIN states that "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition [that] is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia." Thus, even though the great majority may not know of Ft not Portland's existence, this does not make it irrelevant. In fact, the fort was very relevant to a great many people. It was an important punk rock and anarcho-folk music venue in the Louisville community for over a year. It was also an important center for organizing radical political activities. It's impact on the anarchist and punk community in louisville and the South-East region of the United States is still deeply felt. Just because this community is small in relation to the greater community does not mean their interests should be ignored. 3) This article is the first article in what I was hoping to be an attempt to document "Punk Houses" in the United States. A category has been created to aid in this. It is a phenomenon that is actually very interesting and has many anthropological implecations.
I understand people's concerns with this article, but I really don't think it warrants deletion. Perhaps there is a more appropriate tag something like "we're working on it" or some-such that will denote the inadequecy of the article. Electricz03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity is just incidental. You say you want people to add edits from their own personal experience... that's a big problem, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and needs to be able to cite published sources. See Wikipedia:No original research... that's the real problem here. Unless you can cite actual media or equivilent published 3rd party coverage of this place that confirms your claims... there's no way it could pass the AfD, in my opinion at least. --W.marsh16:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the source information for those original sources that you hold so sacred come from? First person experience, anecdote and accounts are all valid sources for a scholarly article, as long as there is a well rounded collection of these views of events. I am not trying to make a comparison of importance, but what you are saying is that no first hand account of an event is valid as a resource, or that no analysis of current events, in writing, with out "published source material" is valid.
The Wikipedia is *not* a compendium of "scholarly articles." It is an encyclopedia. No original research is allowed here. All articles require hard references of their factuality. Anecdote is clearly not allowed. First person experience would only count if you have two or more such experiences/accounts that are unconnected and referenced somewhere that can be pointed to. Simply discussing such experiences in the article isn't good enough; there has to be backup for these things. — Stevie is the man!Talk | Work18:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research on the wikipedia "no original research" policy today. I do not believe that it applies to this article either. WP:NOR states the following: "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation'." Essentially it seems that WP:NOR is mostly relevant to academic articles. Articles involving the hard sciences as well as the social sciences. My belief is reinforced by section three of WP:AFDP none of the examples given seem to apply. Electricz03:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete (nom): can never be more than a definition of a neologism; probably doesn't even belong on Wiktionary. --Kgf023:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Just not seeing the encyclopedic value of this article, but maybe thats just me (and a few admins trigger happy on the speedy delete button with this page). I decided to post here for a rational discussion hopefully leading to a consensus (I'll be holding my breath for that...)—Gaffταλκ04:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that I, on the mistaken assumption that this page was just a recreation of a properly deleted previous article due to the previous deletion before my own, support this AFD since it makes it official and if this is recreated then it can be properly speedied as per CSD. JtkieferT | @ | C ----- 05:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I didn't mean to imply anything before the time has passed, I just was noting in case that this ends in delete. JtkieferT | @ | C ----- 05:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lame attempt at censorship. It's dissapointing that so many experienced users would delete a page simply because they disagree with the subject. freestylefrappe05:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be deleted because Wikipedia is not a web directory, and the article is completely unencyclopedic, not because of the subject. Censorship would be if the government shut down the fuckfrance.com web site. Wikipedia not having an article on them in no way censors them. --DavidConrad05:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether or not I, or anyone else here, likes the content is irrelevant. The truth is that Wikipedia is not a web directory, and this website is not notable at this time. Jacqui★05:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because people oppose an unauthorised war started on false premises and later illegal incarceration and torture of innocent people doesn't mean they suddenly become a free target for insults. — JIP | Talk13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while its Alexa ranking isn't that bad, the article fails to establish significance and contains POV in the last paragraph and speculation about its creator. Once that is gone, there's nothing substantial left to keep. - Mgm|(talk)13:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, go through 'whatlinkshere' and remove redlinks to prevent any temptation of recreation. I'm surprised there isn't a range of hills called the George Hills anywhere. Prototc15:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: I don't see anything to merge. What's not original research is already well represented, so this is a deletion candidate for redundancy. Geogre16:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this article. This case has generated a lot of controversy across the board. The blogs are notable because there are strong feelings the case which are not represented in the mainstream media (MSM). Due to the Aruban system, where the prosecutor rarely makes press conferences and information does not want to be free, even the MSM turned to these bloggers for information. I find it interestng (and therefore notable) that a strong contingent wants to delete references to the blogs, as well as the other subjects related to this case such as the sex trade theory, the drug cartels and racism in Aruba. Joaquin Murietta05:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything here worth merging. Conspiracy theories are by nature unverifiable. Strong feelings come with POV. External links serve a specific purpose in an encyclopedia which may or may not reflect their "importance" in other contexts. If a contributor wishes to discuss the case without respect to WP policy there are better forums out there. Dystopos05:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, promotes blogs, and information about them, which is a legitimate footnote to the holloway story should be merged into the Natalee Holloway page. No reason to have this as a separate page.
Comment I started this article and it looks like it is about to be deleted. So I am adding what I told Yamla in response to her inquiry:
A brief paragraph on my perspective, I started Grassroots coverage of Natalee Holloway because the blogs that link to media coverage were continually deleted in the Natalee Holloway article. The same people went over to the new article and voted to AfD it as nn blogcruft etc. If that is consensus, then I think the Kuroshin reference in the Natalee Holloway article should be deleted. Kuroshin's sole "coverage" is what is conceded to be a "profanity-laced editorial". But the blogs which act as mini-encyclopedias of media coveragev videos, ( e.g. www.blogsfornatalee.com and joranvandersloot.blogspot.com ) are continually deleted.
I can understand the anti-blog attitude, but a couple of the blogs have no outside posts, they are, like I said, mini enyclopedias of the news coverage. But they keep getting deleted from the Natalee Holloway article. It is interesting that the case evokes so many emotions, and has brought several Aruban govt. officials over to Wikipedia. Well, time will tell. Thanks for your votes and your consideration of this AfD. Joaquin Murietta04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said repeatedly, both on Talk:Natalee Holloway and in edit summaries, if you have a case as to why a particular External Link is useful and encyclopedic, make the argument on the the Talk Page so that a consensus can be reached. That's how the Kuro5hin link became part of the article after I and others had been deleting it several times. Be aware that Wikipedia does have policy for external links (Wikipedia:External links) which favors adding information to the article rather than just building a link farm. The argument in favor of Kuro5hin's editorial was that it had achieved exceptional notice among discussions about the case, as evidenced by its ranking in Google searches. It sounds like a decent case can be made for some of these others, but I maintain it's your responsibility to seek consensus rather than forking to new articles that are obvious candidates for deletion. Dystopos05:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Vote count here is 6 merge/10 delete, but I think that the "merge" voters did so under the assumption that this club actually existed. Arguments have been presented that the club is not verifiable, and because of this it is not a suitable candidate for merging. Sjakkalle(Check!)15:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge. There's nothing verifiable here, thus nothing to merge. I agree this is not a good use of Afd, it should have been speedied. Oh, it was. Hmm. Friday(talk)03:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is there to merge? The best i can think of is that the ultimate team and founding date is added to the school page. Since the team is already listed on the school page then just add the words founded 2002. David D.(Talk)04:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought but since this IP traces to Haverford College not NC it appears this is either written by an alumini of Grimsley or a hoaxer (i notice the ultimate team mention on the HS page was added from the same IP number). Who will be ringing up Grimsley HS to verify this team exists? David D.(Talk)04:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm curious what, exactly, the people saying merge think ought to be merged? The existance of this student club? (It doesn't sound like it's even a proper team). Its membership and history? The kid who hurt his foot? Any given high school is going to have many many student clubs. Unless they're somehow significant, I don't think this type of incredibly-local-interest detail needs to be included. And, by local interest, I mean only the members themselves are likely to be interested. A good high school football team might have enough interest (and coverage in local papers) to be mentioned in the H.S. article, but a club?? What could they have done that would be verifiable? Friday(talk)14:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, some would maintain that if a thousand people have used one particular toilet, and if an article about it is verifiable and not a copyvio, we should have an article about it. (Personally, I do not agree). Dpbsmith(talk)00:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Friday and Dan Smith. WP:V and WP:RS need to be taken far more seriously than they currently are. The integrity of the encyclopedia rests on it. It has often surprised me that there is so much difference in the way we generally address contraventions of WP:Copyrights, and contraventions of WP:V & WP:RS. It shouldn't be that way. All core article policies—NPOV, V, NOR, Copyrights—ought to be observed with great care. encephalon00:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Keep Currently a poorly-written stub, but it might have potential. As a St. Louis resident I can attest to the at least local notability of this independent shop. May not meet the WP:CORP guidelines, but I don't know if Ted Drewes would either. It has played a role in the redevelopment of the Washington Avenue Loft District (which still needs its own article). I am almost sure it has received some press coverage through the years, and will see what I can find. TMS6311220:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The proprietor seems to have been the subject of an independent documentary (see bottom of this link). [11]. He gets 483 Google hits by my count. Maybe the article should be about him instead of his shop! TMS6311221:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
All words are "made up". The question is, is the word useful and used by people. Google references 36,000 web pages that use horked. It's pretty clear that it's being used a lot. In limiting the results to US Government sites I found "horked boot disk". HUGS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.1.49 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 23:58:06 UTC
Delete per Uncle G, noting also that the article missed the variant definition "stole," and that the preceding unsigned comment was from the same IP as the article's creator/principle editor. --Kgf000:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this would be better moved to Wiktionary. It is amusing, to me, to note that words are "things" and so the above definition about what separates wikipedia from wiktionary is slightly arbitrary. A clearer discription is that wikipedia is for proper nouns, I think. -- Sign me, the same idiot that made the entry.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Do Not Delete.This is an important independent production. It is a crime to try to censor struggling artists as they attempt to get noticed for their artistic accomplishments. Just because you aren't cultured enough to be aware of these films doesn't mean that listing them online is inappropriate. It is the very height of arrogance to suggest that since a film is not the product of the corporate and stagnate Hollywood system, it is therefore not valid as artistic expression. Just because the makers of this does not have the studio dollars or distribution muscle behind the many so-called mainstream films, it doesn't mean you can shut them down. Do not use your ignorance as an excuse to limit a filmmakers access to the viewing public. That...is un-American. - Peter O'Toole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.237.168.53 (talk • contribs)
Do Not Delete I cannot believe that we're even having this discussion. This is a fantastic film, and I hope that it is well recieved if and when it gets a distribution deal. Don't censor art. - Tom Whitworth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Whitworth (talk • contribs)
Do Not Delete. Riotto Ulriggio happens to be my absolute favorite independent, non-mainstream director, and his rendition of "Ice Cream Man" is one of his absolute best works. Additionally, despite criticism to the contrary, Joe Howard and Chris McPeak offer up stunning, Academy-award-winning quality performances. I was terribly disappointed when I learned that Chris McPeak's entry had been deleted before I had a chance to defend his immense cultural significance, and could not let the same happen to this masterful film. The influence these three artists have had in the Independent Republic of Freemont, Seattle, WA is impossible to gauge, but let it suffice to say that to remove knowledge of this film from the public sphere would be a grave injustice, and would be an act of violence against the American people. ~Saul Madigo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saul madigo (talk • contribs)
Delete as nn indy movies, unverifiable. The above users should note that new user's votes must be discounted to prevent ballot stuffing. See WP:SOCK#.22Meatpuppets.22 --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)
To be pedantic, we're not voting, we're discussing. Also, there's no "must" in the discarding. If new (or even anon) contributors present compelling arguments with supporting evidence these are usually taken into consideration. brenneman(t)(c)01:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the AfD guidelines. Sorry, I have simply worded it poorly. "Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." Those contributions will probably be discounted in light of the sockpuppet policy above. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, if new, anonymous contributors present compelling evidence contrary to their preferences, that is also taken into account. — PhilWelch01:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Original research/speculation/cosmic musings. Wikipedia is not the place to explain the Ultimate Truth to folks. Geogre15:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-encyclopedic. Delete. This article was originally created as "Top 10 colleges of India". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 colleges of India. Why does an encyclopedia need a list of "top ten" prepared by a magazine? Such lists are highly POV and subjective. In fact, IIMs had opted out of such Top Ten lists some time ago. There are innumerable magazines and newspapers bringing out list of top ten colleges each year - we don't need an article for each of them. utcursch | talk04:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing: These lists are copyvio: See [12]] and [13]. The author doesn't discuss the list - the criteria, the methodology. The author has not taken any pains to even wikify the list. utcursch | talk06:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wasn't saying this nomination was systemic bias. To clarify my position, I will reprint here what I put on my talk page:
I wasn't saying the nomination was an example of systemic bias. Of course not! What I was saying was that, since we have articles on such US lists, it's only fair that we have Indian ones too. And I think we should have such lists, in general. Jacqui★16:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I think the nominator could legitimately take umbrage at the above implications that s/he is somehow culturally biased and put this on Afd b/c it is from India. Assume good faith and recall that many find such lists cumbersome, unwieldy, and problematic, regardless of cultural or national origin. Dottore So10:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What nonsense. Suggesting that there might be systemic bias against articles about non-primary English speaking countries is not the same as implying that an editor is personally culturally biased. Quit waving around WP:AGF trying to make points.--Nicodemus7512:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and the American ones too. Every single publication in every single country in the world seems to run at least one "top ten" or "top 100" article every year, it's a space-filler for the silly season or the slow period round Jan 1. Where do we set the cutoff for these arbitrary lists? - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] :: AfD?14:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep if it can be shown that this list is well-known and influential. Also include note that IIMS have opted out Bwithh22:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How big or small does a publication have to be before its subjective annual top ten lists get Wikipedia articles, and who is responsible for updating them every year when a different set of arbitrary choices replaces them? All these articles are unencyclopaedic. Their legitimacy depends entirely on a fallacious appeal to the authority of the journal which published them. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] :: AfD?10:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to be truely NPOV we must keep this since we allow lists like Rolling Stones top 100 guitarists of all time and other lists of that nature. ALKIVAR™06:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see it in the AfDs over and over, but I'm still unmoved by the argument that possible cruft justifies more possible cruft. Do you have another argument for the merits of this article? Thanks, --William Pietri06:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record I would also delete Rolling Stone's top 100 guitarists and all the other subjective lists by random publications, with the possible exception of The 100 if it can be proven beyond doubt that this genuinely started the whole stupidity, and even then It could go either way on the grounds of being a blindingly obvious concept. A list of this nature without the spurious authority of a publication would instantly be deleted as inherently subjective. Having someone else without a NPOV rule publish it just allows it to be slipstreamed into Wikipedia without the benefit of a provable basis for inclusion or ranking. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] :: AfD?13:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that. I think Rolling Stone can host their own list. The material seems fine on individual school pages, and I'm happy with a page that describes in an NPOV way the topic of ranking schools in country X that has links to these lists. But including the lists themselves seems to be dancing on the border of both POV and copyvio. --William Pietri15:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. Article should explain the fact that India Today prints this list periodically and externally link to the source material of the lists. No reason to recreate lists on wikipedia.my comment...unsigned [User:Isotope23]
Comment. Hi there. This is your friendly neighborhood IPlawyer. Listing the names of the schools can not be a copyvio, because Newsweek is simply taking a set formula and applying it to publicly available facts about the schools in question. See Feist v. Rural. The formula itself is merely an idea, and is not subject to copyright; only the expression of the idea can be protected, and the listing here does not duplicate the expression because it differs significantly from the layout of the Newsweek list. See Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1991). I've maintained such a list - indeed one more similar to Newsweek's own - in my user space for quite some time without fear of legal action, because I'm quite confident that this is no copyvio (and even if it was, it would easily qualify as fair use). No vote on the article itself. Cheers! BD2412T 15:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even if this isn't a copyright violation, it's pointless to rehash this Newsweek article. Claims of bias are a bit silly. Foofy23:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nonsense (not "patent nonsense") about The International Sufi Movement. The Movement itself exists, and possibly deserves an article, but this original-research-fest ain't it, and hasn't been it since its inception back in August. The article is an orphan, and receives almost no attention apart from half-hearted vandalism from Sufiests, or whatever they're called. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sufism. and let me quantify that. I'd prefer to see a keep and cleanup, however if that does not happen by the end of the AfD, I'd prefer a redirect in the hopes that someone else will come along and write a good article on the International Sufi Movement in place of the current POV rant. If someone cleans this up before the end of the AfD, drop me a message and I will certainly reconsider.--Isotope2315:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
<Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Since "bless you" is not in japanese wikipedia, why should an similar Japanese phrase be notable in english wikipedia? --Rogerd04:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this article can't be expanded much more than it is. "Itadakimasu" is what you say before you eat. You might mention some derivation of the word from Buddhist traditions, but that's about it. It doesn't deserve an article on its own, but could be merged into Japanese cuisine (for lack of a better place). --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, speedy if possible under nn-bio. To quote the article James "Jimbo" Boulter is a little known character in the wider world... an admision of non-notability. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm sympathetic to niche characters and those notable in very narrow fields-- however, I can't quite justify this one to myself. Too small an audience. Wiki-directory-of-all-people-everywhere is a better fit. Wellspring15:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Save I must Object James is Indeed a very great asset to a multi million pound organisation, He is a future Alumini of Cambridge and is t wrong to remove a persons entry into a niche simply because he hasnt touched your life. How many people must support him before he warrents and entry. More importantly, how many people must suffer without. I also Note you have a page for yourself is that pure vanity. I understand that you cant have an entry for every one but I implore you to at least give this article a chance, The person in question is far to modest as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob15v (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 12:44:20 UTC
No he could not, because by the time he wrote his comment, I had not written anything at all in this AfD debate. What do you think he is, a mind reader? — JIP | Talk17:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the above and I can Assure you that the Subject has had no influence over the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.210.226 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 15:13:05 UTC
Keep It's only as non-notable as any other article on this site. Notability is over-rated. Citing all that the member above wrote! :D Big Booger15:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)][reply]
Keep Who are we to judge, this, I think such an individual, any individual is as worthy of note and non-deletion as say Naokawa, Oita. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.210.226 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 15:20:40 UTC
Save To quote 'Redvers': To quote the article "James "Jimbo" Boulter is a little known character in the wider world"... an admision of non-notability - Perhaps the nuance of this delightful little article is lost upon my honourable friend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Thompson (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 15:20:01 UTC
Delete: When he actually leads the life less ordinary, he will be noted for an accomplishment that affected the lives more ordinary. Until then, he's some dude. Geogre16:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferrably speedy. If he wants to create his own User account, then by all means he can have all that mentioned and listed. Else, I think that there's really no reason to have the article here. --Martin Osterman16:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"James 'Jimbo' Boulter is a little known character"... yup, I think that's a delete then. Not to mention what looks suspiciously like rampant sockpuppetry above. — HaelethTalk17:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable bio... and with a poorly executed meatsockpuppet support network. Now if you'll excuse me, all these votes have me in the mood to spin some Meat Puppets.--Isotope2317:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ive allready Said my fill however the subject of the article allready has an account though with no biography, this was written in a purely autobiographical sense and has been placed on wiki as a resource to all, I believe the auther wrote it to commemerate such a person and that James himself had no imput at all. Also James could be defined as significant under the code of conduct. He has received 42 commercial endorsments, significant local press coverage, has a fan base of several thousand this alone should give him a place, quite apart from the other issues my sock puppeting friend above has raised, I must add that I know this Jimbo and although I didnt write the article i would be prepared to verify the details User: Rob15v (comment originally by 217.44.195.40 (talk·contribs), then edited by User:Rob15v
Speedy Delete under category A7 as a biography that doesn't assert notability. His one claim to fame is being Head Boy at his school. While he may hope to be Prime Minister of the UK, at the moment he is a schoolboy and not notable. Problems with WP:V. Capitalistroadster23:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have edited the page now inserting truthfull data, His group Neon did indeed win the awards and recieved significantr acliam as they were the youngest group in their catagory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob15v (talk • contribs) 10:54, 9 November 2005
Save Whatever your're views, this gentleman is clearly an asset to a local area and as worthy as mention as any other article on this fine website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlin 22k (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete nn-bio. 28 unique Google hits and nothing to indicate he's any different from any other surfer. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This disambiguation page only consists only of dictionary definitions, contradicting Wikipedia policy. The Wiktionary entry contains all of the presented info, and there isn't an appropriate redirect.--Commander Keane07:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge Wiktionary into Wikipedia. There is no need for a division between them. It's an irrelevant division inherited from paper. CalJW08:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, it's policy ( Wikipedia is not a dictionary) and while wikipedia is not paper, it is a database. This the search function runs slowly sometimes? Imagine MediaWiki querying wikipedia and wiktionary databases (or a combined database)... that alone should be sufficent argument against that suggestion.--Isotope2321:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as the {{disambig}} template says, disambiguation pages are "a list of pages that otherwise might share the same title". There are no Wikipedia articles about Jiffy. None of the articles linked to on the Jiffy page mention Jiffy. At the moment, this page is a useful dictionary page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary - that is official policy.--Commander Keane10:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is now a proper dab page, with the information about different time-lengths moved to Jiffy (time). I added the packaging company, and also the lemon juice company (as Jiffy packaging is known in the US, so a Jiffy lemon is similarly well known in the UK). Grutness...wha?12:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jiffy as it is a disambigous page that redirects to one article... all other links are dead. While we are at it, Jiffy (time) which was created as a product of this AfD should be deleted as well because it is essentially a list of dicdefs.--Isotope2319:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page and TranswikiJiffy_(time) on wikctionary. Of course, if someone manages to expand the latter page or to create a page on any other use of Jiffy, I would be glad to change my vote. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC). I just realized that both Jiffy and Jiffy (time) are taken from the entry on wikctionary. Delete both. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
blatant hoax, no Google hits, unfortunately "blatant silliness" isn't a speedy criterion. Apparently he ..attended Gloucestor (sic) University and acheived a First Class degree in the art of design leg warmers, with a minor in glitter studies. Riiight. Tonywalton | Talk15:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy it: It's nonsense, even if it isn't "patent" nonsense. It's also just another attempt at making WP one's web host. Geogre16:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However as I mentioned merely being nonsense is not a speedy criterion (in fact hoaxiness is specifically excluded from WP:CSD). Sad but true. Tonywalton | Talk
Delete preferably speedy. WP:CSD prescribes vandalism as a reason for speedy deletion of pages under category G3. Our vandalism page cites "Silly vandalism" consisting of the creation of joke articles or plausible sounding false articles. This is a textbook definition of silly vandalism. Certainly should be deleted as problem with WP:V. Capitalistroadster17:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
' Edward Herbert here, how dare you speak so illy of my father. The reason you found no Google hits is because his great career defining invention was stolen by one Count Minogue who claimed invention of the article for himself. John Herbert is a great part of Hampton, and fashion history.'
'I attend Hampton School and I can assure you that this bloke is included in the school's history. I'm not sure about the details of his life but the school does have a plaque with his name on'
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An article written by a schoolboy about his teacher and friends. I've removed the schoolboy silliness, but the article isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. --Phronima11:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominated by User:Pasiphae at 07:57, 8 November 2005, may or may not be speediable as recreation of previously deleted content (could an admin please check the history).
Delete all related: They number their groupies? That's sad. That's really, really, really sad. (The band is not yet notable, and its members would not warrant individual articles unless they achieved individual notability outside of their band associaiton (and therefore being in a band is not a claim of notability, but rather a claim of a need for a redirect to the band page).) Geogre16:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Content removed by anon claiming to be the articles creator (IP does not match). Anon stated they wanted the article removed, but did not know how to do so. Tossing this up for AFD to fulfill the anon's request in the proper way. TexasAndroid16:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, whether copyvio or not, as advert of NN online game. I think it's proper to list here and list as a copyvio—otherwise, we'd still be stuck with this crap if (as may be likely) the dumped text is not actually a copyvio but was dumped here by its author. There's no reason the two processes can't work in tandem to axe this article. But don't just list here if it's a suspected copyvio. Postdlf21:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article sounds like it could be on a notable person, but google test makes me suspect that Mr Kumar doesn't exist. Google test doesn't always work for non-Anglo-Americans, however, so we'll have to see what's posted. Ingoolemotalk22:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Current contents do not establish notability, and perhaps I will have to edit and remove reference to him placed by someone in Bihar under the section: Language and Literature – perhaps people (including me) sometimes make wrong assessment about notability. Yes, Ragib is absolutely right. --Bhadani14:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Research shows that she is also a localization manager who has worked on many games. [15] Nevertheless I think I'm going to come down on the Delete side seeing as it's not all that notable a position. flowersofnight(talk)15:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This page contains only one sentence, and not a very useful sentence. Perhaps this page's information should go onto a more general page, Fertray, 8 November 2005 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ludicrously subjective list, whose entries inclusion factor often seems to be "actor with one famous role". Delete or clean-up with a chainsaw. Calton | Talk00:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep some actors are undeniably typecast, like Ben Stein as a blatently boring professor/economist type, Leonard Nimoy as Spock... the current list is obviously biased, but it could be rewritten as actors who are famously typecast to the point where it controls their entire careers (for better or worse) and is what they are best known for (or only known for). Difficult to maintain but could be useful. Can understand if no one wants to vote to keep with the current list... --W.marsh00:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only list actors who have been publicly identified as being typecast such as George Reeves, the cast of Star Trek, Adam West, etc. should be included. The issue of typecasting is real, and a properly maintained list would be useful in conjunction with the various articles on the subject. All POV-based judgement calls should be deleted. For example, there is no evidence to suggest Gillian Anderson has been typecast. Certainly Leo DiCaprio has not been typecast as Jack Dawson... chainsaw time, indeed. 23skidoo04:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The issue of typecasting is indeed real. And an article on typecasting would therefore be encyclopaedic. But a list of actors who may or may not have been typecast is POV and unmaintainable. Typecasting (acting) already covers this. Some of the names are already in there as examples. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] :: AfD?09:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up with a chainsaw. Specifically, we should narrow the criteria to actors who have had more than one role, and be very aggressive about requiring sources -- ie, it can't just be some random Wikipedian's impression; there should be reputable sources who feel that way, too. But, clean up is only a few clicks away, and this maybe could have gone there first. If cleanup didn't work, sure, I'd kill it too. Jacqui★05:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as just too hard to maintain. Could be a good article but it's impossible to be sure of who should and shouldn't be on the list. Denni☯04:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Typecasting is indeed real but just because somebody is famous for certain role or certain kind of roles, they are not necessarily typecast. Especially if the role in question just launched their career, it may be too early to say if they are typecast or not. Not to mention to some actors intentionally want only certain kind of roles, when "typecasting" usually refers to something undesireable. This list would make sense if, for example, it would include people who are widely accepted to be typecast (ST:OS cast) or have publicly complained that they are typecast. Otherwise the list is POV - Skysmith15:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (having already voted). It's a shame to lose this after so much work has gone into it. Deleted it has to be, though. Reading it again I found so many items I disagreed with (Leonardo DiCaprio, I mean come on). The fact that it provokes that kind of judgement is evidence of its subjectivity. There is an article at Typecasting (acting), and some of the better examples could be merged there. AndyJones20:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Should be a speedy delete: First, it's two predicate nominatives (i.e. no content). Second, it's the usual kiddie graffiti we get a ton of every day -- bored high school kids fantasizing and writing their names on our wall. Geogre15:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. i've seen worse articles that are kept, besides I think this is a pretty informative article about a "internet phenomenon". --Philo05:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I don't exactly think this is important myself, the fact that it made its way all the way to Shigeru Miyamoto says to me it's important to a good number of people.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep the link just under the image leads to a paper (on an external site), which is about the topic of the article. Did you miss it? This does not qualify as original research, then. As for notability, I have also found this article about the topic of the article, and I am going to add this and some other references to the article. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Training by means of PalmPilot? I'm thinking not. I'm an educator; I've seen no hint of this on the horizon; smells like original research to me. Delete. Denni☯06:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; in the Wikipedia, original research means WP:NOR:
The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
This article is not original research because it summarizes information from some papers published elsewhere. You can still vote delete for some other reason, of course.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge per William above. Neither the band nor the person is big enough (in either sense) to merit a separate entry. WP is, after all, searchable, but if we care that much we could always leave a redirect behind. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] :: AfD?19:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wow. Oh, wow. Man. Wow. It's like...uhh... Wow. He has founded the company with a strong background in IT. That is a good thing and not an obvious thing spotted which now spotted is without notice. Delete: A finance executive whose hagiographer is having trouble with English. Geogre16:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong keep - there's nothing wrong with the article - it's as valid as having an article on Ronald McDonald. The original and main contributor is a long-time Wikipedia contributor with a history of good articles about African topics, and no history of promoting Guinness. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver16:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't be deleted. The user review for Critical Assignment on IMDb, on the other hand...— unsigned comment by user:205.244.119.2 — CB
Keep. This article is well-presented and cites sources. It was in fact featured on our front page. The character is very well-known in Africa and meets WP:FICT by transcending the work he appears in. Capitalistroadster17:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't see this as particulary encyclopedia-worthy material, but it appears he is well known in Africa and there is precedent for keeping well know spokespeople. Article is failry well written and has avoided being completely blatent adspeak as well...which isn't a criteria for inclusion, but is nice to see nonetheless.--Isotope2317:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is frankly the kind of article I expect to find on Wikipedia. You're sure not going to find info on a subject like this on encarta or britannica. Taterbill18:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to initially suggest merging conservatively to the Guiness article, but they made a bloody movie featuring him, for Christ's sake. Even Ronald McDonald never got his own feature film... Any problems the article has are ones to be solved through further editing. Postdlf18:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can anyone tell me why this should not be merged into alcohol advertising or maybe merged with some of that and split into a wider article on Guinness campaigns (several of which have been considered influential by the admittedly self-obsessed advertising industry)? A whole article of this size (about the same size as the realLeonard Cheshire) on a fictional character from an advert rather than a work of actual literature seems grossly disproportionate. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] :: AfD?18:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The place to merge would be Guinness, but I don't think that's the appropriate thing to do. Similar articles could be written on other advertising campaigns, surely. I'd think this falls under Wikipedia:Summary style. In other words, merging this into Guinness (or alcohol advertising) would disproportionately discuss one single ad campaign at the expense of others. Instead, I think Guinness should have a summary of the Michael Power campaign but not in the same level of detail (this would also address systemic bias). Incidentally, when I started the article, I thought "Michael Power" was a real person. That's the general attitude in Cameroon, and that's how Guinness is treating this character. People even debate what village he's from. Perhaps this should be made clearer in the article. —BrianSmithson18:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that an article of this length on a fictional character from an advert is grossly disproportionate. But I'd be happy to support an article on Guinness campaigns generally (as I said). I just don't think that articles of this length on ephemeral characters are desirable. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] :: AfD?19:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ephemeral? His face is known across an entire continent and he's starred in a feature film. He's been constantly in the public eye for eight years right now. This guy is in many ways less ephemeral than many works of literature. Meelar(talk)21:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, you could just as easily make the "ephemeral" argument for almost any book, movie, CD, TV show, athlete, politician, or event of this year, no? Such, sadly, is the nature of all human endeavor... If the Wikipedians of 2152 want to put this on AfD, I probably won't be around to stop them. =) --Dvyost13:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is culturally important to some people and informative for the rest of us. That's what the wiki is here for. If we were to treat similar articles like this one, then half of the wiki would be deleted. Boothcat432021:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As a journalist I tried to write about this film-as-advertising and found it hard to get information. This is a useful resource. TimHarford16:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The article is historical. With it I can learn about something that happened elsewhere in the world. From it I wonder if Western "image marketing" is new to Africa. I heard of someone easily quitting smoking once they notice how the marketing affects them. So the article is significant.
Keep. Naturally most of the info cited is from Guiness, I don't imagine there are a lot of other organizations out there producing literature about their campaign. This article is very informative and obviously culturally relavent to large parts of Africa. Where's the beef? is another example of advertising campaigns gaining cultural relevance. I think they're interesting studies in consumerism and have a place here on Wikipedia. Zytsef09:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not only is it a well-written article, the Michael Power phenomenon is an important African cultural development - a media-created character that has popularity and resonance across the continent. Important to have an article as a web reference on the topic, rather than just corporate references.Ethanz14:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I voted on this, so I don't want to close it, but you know anyone, not just an admin, can close an obvious speedy keep like this. Feel free. . . Chick Bowen03:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Somewhat hagiographic article about somebody for whom (as either "Mohamad" or "Mohammad") Google provides a total of zero hits. Not verifiable. -- Hoary07:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to understand how being employed in a company, especially one whose own article was deleted for lack of notability, somehow automatically guarantees notability. — JIP | Talk13:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per long-standing precedent, but I'd like to ask - is there actually an official policy on this anywhere, or records of where this consensus was reached? It just seems strange that there can be a unanimous consensus to keep articles on tiny villages, while things like schools are surrounded by such controversy. Where are all the deletionists? :/ — HaelethTalk16:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here is the reason why towns and burgs are always kept. I think I have pretty good credentials as a "deletionist," but I'm in favor of keeping all the places (and few of the schools). There have been at least three occasions where the subject has come up, most spectacularly with Eequor's mass listing of 20 or so towns and a "delete 'em all under population 15,000." Essentially, a town occupies a specific nexus in a biographical, historical, military, or industrial article. Even if Possum Trot isn't big now, it might be the location where the Battle of the Big Hill took place in the past. Each city/town is unique as well, having a particular narrative built into it. On the other hand, public schools in the US, for example, are, by nature and law, designed to be as nearly identical as possible and to fulfill an entirely predictable and dependable function with each and every student, so there is less character to discuss with them. Particular schools that deviate from the uniformity achieve note and become "notable" and warrant inclusion, but a school that looks and acts like the others is, at least for me, no more worthy of writing about than a particular gas station or hot dog stand -- important to its customers but not having an unique or particular effect beyond the local. Geogre18:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Not an encyclopedia article. Rather, this is an obit. There may be copyvio issues as well. The subject of the obit may or may not warrant a (different) article, but eulogies, memorials, and obituaries are deletion candidates, and we would need to hear of greater significance for a new article to be a sure fire keeper. Geogre16:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, probably speediable too (and I'm conservative on speedies.) Article says he was a pastor, and that's about it. Xoloz14:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep but move to his real name, Dipankar Nagchoudhuri (I'll do this now). His employer describes him as a man who has earned the honour of being styled "Dr", has been a professor for decades, and has written three books. I have a hunch that mistakes like this wouldn't be made if we'd all put a little more effort into our nominations, rather than just saying "non-notable" and optionally providing a link to a half-arsed Google search. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote to a weak delete; only his "Microelectronic Devices" seems to be mentioned by anyone but himself[19]. The books he has written are all textbooks, which doesn't make for notability in my mind: I don't think we have articles on other authors of textbooks; their distribution would usually be under 5000, I'd think. jnothmantalk07:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I do not think he has become so notable right now to find a place here. Nothing specific is there to differentiate him from 1000s and 1000s of others in the world like him. --Bhadani14:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by author request. User:Cmetom was the sole contributor of substantive edits, blanked the article, and expressed a desire to see it deleted below. android7917:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Even a slightly notable band would have some Google mention, but all I'm seeing are references to the charity and the movie of the same name. 23skidoo13:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Want a giggle? Click on the band members - one of whom is a 18th century Scottish professor. Ifnord14:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, I can create something no-one wants, but I can't destroy it. Yes yes, I'm a big baby and you all think I'm some retarded troll or a complete sook. Whatever, I find it creepy that there is a legion of nerds out there who wait around for something they think is irrelevant to the entire world to be posted, then all vote for it to be deleted. If I wanted to troll or post a genuine vanity article, why did I bother reading all those wiki guidelines? Sheesh. -cmetom out.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Why? There are over 700 tenants in my apartment complex, most of whom have been here way longer than those students have been in that school. Do they "deserve the right" to have an article too? Denni☯05:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep simply because, for the sake of consistency, every other two bit school gets an entry too. But as for having the 'right' to a 'WikiPedia (sic) article' - sheesh! What left-liberal soapbox did you get off?. Eddie.willers02:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice name, but your Wikipolitics are incorrect. Also, don't call leftists liberals. They're not. Libertarians, Objectivists, Goldwaterites, et al are the true liberals. Kurt Weber23:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Beggin' yer pardon, buddy, but I happen to be a left-liberal, and please see above comment. Park yer prejudices at the door, please&thankya. Denni☯05:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well crack my head and call me a fascist! How 'bout you leave your sensitivities at the door and note that I had already been chastised before you jumped in? Eddie.willers13:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1. Excessive Vandalism. 2. NN 3. Dire need of cleanup which is probably not worth the effort because of wikipedia had an article on every middle middleschool the english wiki would probably have hit 1 million already. Falphin02:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is the target of excessive vandalism and seems to be A JOKE! delete first. if they want to create an article that is of HIGHER STANDARD let them do so, but for now we need to delete this article.--->Newyorktimescrossword03:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The vandalism was removed. I just added a sentence. And if everyone here who voted delete so far also added a sentence, then it would be seven sentences total, and a larger stub than most. Jacqui*205:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I came upon this article and reverted a blanking, without noticing it was cleaning out of vandalism. However, by the time I went back to revert myself, Academic Challenger beat me to it. The page was completely filled of personal attacks, in its current state it is a stub that could fall within CSD A1 in the opinion of some admins, and middle schools are not notable. Titoxd(?!?)06:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to comment on whether this article should or should not be deleted, but we all know that it won't be. Please stop nominating school articles. Even hoax schools get votes to keep, so deleting a real one is impossible at present. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and Merge with district, NN, woefully inadequate article, and vandalism to the extreme, but per developing consensus and compromise at WP:SCH I yield to the new view on middle schools.Gateman199707:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all schools are inherently notable, think of all the people that it influences during its period of use. All of these people who come from it are the REASON the school became notable. ALKIVAR™07:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the usual reasons at the usual place. Cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion, and there is no consensus to delete these schools, please stop nominating them. My two sentences have been added. Silensor07:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! Not another school article!! On the one hand, we all know that most schools are not really encyclopedic. On the other hand, my non-encyclopeic school has an intake of 300 pupils a year. It has been open for about 50 years. That means it has been significant to around 15 000 children. Each child has 2 parents: so that's around another 30 000 lives impacted on. Then there are teachers, support staff, neighbours, local businesses which support the school and so on and so on, so that, all told, my old school has probably had a "notable" impact on around 100 000 lives. If only people would just stop writing these da**ed articles the problem would go away.... Marcus2211:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Perhaps the easiest answer would just be to speedy keep any school article. However notable/unnotable the place, any deletion vote is always going to end in no consensus. Marcus2220:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the current version (trimmed of the personal attacks) is all OK by me, but if it continues to be vandalised, it may have to be deleted. — JIP | Talk13:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete schools below university level unless they (A) played a pivotal role in the history of schools or pedagogy, (B) are notable research institutions - i.e. a noteworthy new experiment in schooling, or (C) are otherwise the subject of sustained regional, national, or international interest. This article asserts none of these. flowersofnight(talk)14:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attempts to find a compromise have so far been ignored, and I doubt one will ever be attained. As always, I vote to delete every school below college level unless it did something ENCYCLOPAEDIC (and being a box of bricks for teachers to work in does not make it encyclopaedic). Prototc15:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise would be a victory for school deletionists, just as a "compromise" to delete articles about countries with less than a million inhabitants would be a victory for people who thought that small countries are not encyclopedic. About two hundred school articles are added a week and almost none are deleted. It is obvious which way things are going. The only posssible resolution to the problem is for the school deletionists to give up this fruitless and time wasting campaign. CalJW16:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, CalJW, a compromise is where all dissenting parties agree. There is no 'campaign', 'victory' or sides - it's not a war, and comments like yours do not help. The very loose (and very informal) compromise was heading towards 'high school articles kept, below high school not kept, unless particularly notable'. However, this soon got ignored. Which was a shame. An earlier suggestion was merging short school articles into an article on the educational district. Which also got ignored (again, a shame). Prototc16:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I respect your opinion CalJW, it is inherently a totalitarian argument meant to stifle any dissent from those who don't share the ultra-inclusionist view. I can't fault the logic behind the unwillingness to compromise, but it essentially dooms wikipedia to an endless stream of AfD discussions about schools. If that means endless debate then so be it. I'd rather have an endless AfD debate (and hopefully a WP:CIVIL one at that) about schools than an environment where dissention is silenced. And let me echo Proto... if people would bargin in good faith we could perhaps come to a consensus that would mollify the majority. --Isotope2316:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What you are saying, CalJW, is in effect that the simple existence of a vocal group of people willing to vote consistently againt deletion of a class of article is a valid reason for that class of article to be kept in perpetuity, and further debate to be curtailed. How would you feel about a group of unsigned band inclusionists, for example? The school in question is a middle school, not a high school, and the inclusionist cabal [TINC] has not (as far as I kow) extended its coverage to such schools. And as it happens I went to a genuinely notable school (St. Albans School (St. Albans)) so I do find it perplexing that there are schoolw with much shorter histories and zero notable alumni which have *much* larger articles, 90% of which content is trivia - the removal of which trivia would, in most cases, leave "it's a school, it's in this town, it teaches the usual stuff.". - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] :: AfD?18:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe I'm odder than most, but it's my belief that most any information on the important infrastructure of a town, be it historical or educational, so long as it is not commercial, is viable encyclopedic material. I could understand if we were suffering space constraints and such, but schools are supposed to be one of the key foundations of a community. If we are having problems with vandals, protect the page and follow the standards for dealing with such a problem. --Martin Osterman16:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you also support articles on such important infrastructure as water treatment plants, sewer systems, police stations, and telephone exchanges? I guarantee you that in any given town, they will influence even more people than the school! flowersofnight(talk)16:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I need to spend a bit more time clarifying my thoughts in my own head first and foremost. :) I think that I should remove "important infrastructure" and replace with historical and educational keystones of a community -- schools, libraries, and points of historical interest (unless the first two fall under this category as well). Now, I'm not suggesting that we go as far as the Elementary School level for articles, but I think that middle and high schools are noteworthy in their communities, just as libraries might be. Once again, my beliefs might be odd, but that's my opinion on the matter. --Martin Osterman16:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article on the school district/local education authority/town. Schools like this are valuable as parts of their communities, but they're not notable in their own right, so we should describe them in the articles on the communities they're valuable in. (Yes, it's pointless to say this. The battle was lost long ago, and we'll probably have articles on individual kindergarten sandboxes in a year or so. But it makes me feel better...)— HaelethTalk16:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with appropriate geographic entity until the material becomes too much to fit there. Also, rolled eyes for intransigent partisans on both sides of this. --William Pietri18:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing my vote until I better understand this debate. However, kudos to those who improved this article between my vote and now; it looks much better. --William Pietri05:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to geographical parent: At present, it contains all the information one would wish for in a directory. WP is not a directory, however. (I appreciate the efforts at improvement, but it's a lost cause, unless the school has some manner in which it is unique and commented upon by a non-local community.) Geogre18:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, DEFINETLY It's not exactly non-notable, it's got the PRISM Program. The PRISM Program has been very successful and almost eveyr single student that has come out of it has had a successful high school life, taking many AP Classes or taking IB and doing extremely well (as in top of the class) on all those classes. The PRISM Program has been very helpful to advanced and gifted students. Not only that, but PRISM is going to extend into high school, and a suggested high school program has been sent to Harvard and got a reply saying that the program was a very good idea and was a great college entry program.
The program consists of (in middle school) an extended math program into 11th grade (pre-calc), a 9th grade Honors Freshman composition/Philosophy/Ancient world studies class, and a 9th grade biology class (of course these highlights are for the 8th graders). Not only that, but the programs are more in depth than other schools; there is more discussing rather than reviewing the material. Those who go into high school from this program say they are BORED in AP classes, some even skip from 9th to 11th grade in high school.
The High school program extends the Math, English, and Social studies classes even further, and if it takes the AP path, will create a biotechnology class, along with other classes, just for the PRISM Students. In the IB path, the PRISM students take the IB program from 10th to 11th grade, and in the senior year in both paths, creates University of Washington classes, such as the "Social/Political/Economical/Ethical Case studies" program. I don't think this is exactly non-notable.
Odle has also done extremely well in Chess competitions and has won the Blaine Math competition for sixth grade in '04, and the seventh grade division in '05. It has great confidence in he '06 competition. Do you REALLY think it is great for deletion? How about if the information just given to you is added? 8 November 2005, P.M. Preceding comments by User:24.19.161.160
In the event you did not notice, Kappa, I did not vote either on this article or on the other school article up for deletion on this date. Denni☯01:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can understand why some people would vote to keep this article. They think that the subject is notable and the substance could be improved... but "top-notch article"? This article is crap by any standard. Do you just blindly vote on all school articles to save them from deletion? What do you call a featured article? It's pretty evident that this article wouldn't show up in any encyclopedia. Also, what's up with Ryan Delaney? If all articles of "real places" were automatic keeps, my driveway should have its own article. AngryParsley(talk)(contribs)18:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic. Refer to wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete, WP:NOT, etc. Back to WP:SCH which I've been slack on, and maybe make Wikipedia:100 days of schools. We're supposed to be working together on this encyclopedia, aren't we? I'd ask anyone who says "stop nominating" to notice that this AfD, like almost every other one of it's type, is heading toward a 50/50 split. This is not consensus, and one hundred 50/50 splits in a row doesn't make it consensus. - brenneman(t)(c)04:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully soon the deletionists will abandon their futile war and we can get back to working together to build this encyclopedia. Kappa04:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the inclusionists have as much to win by coming to consensus as the deletionists do. Kappa, you have raised concerns before about how you have to waste your time coming here and sifting through AfD to make sure school articles are kept. If there were a working compromise, that would no longer be a necessity. You see, it's not just the deletionists' war - it takes two to tangle, and it also takes two to make peace. Denni☯04:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How was that helpful, Kappa? Who's a deletionist? Why is this "war"? How is "I will not be shifted at all from my position despite what circa half the population thinks" working together? Holy cats. Self-contradictory paradox aside, we seem to be divided into two camps: one that thinks there are two camps and one that does not. Aren't we supposed to accept and accomodate a plurality of views? It does not, in fact, "take two". If one group wants to enforce their views on another, giving no quarter, that's hardly a "tangle" - brenneman(t)(c)04:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I put this up for AfD I didn't know there was a holy war over schools. I knew that there had been some disagreement over high schools. However, I nominated this in good faith, believing that middle schools are not notable and not because I want to see all schools deleted. CambridgeBayWeather(talk)06:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(see talk page)
Keep. It is inconsistent to be selectively inclusive about schools when we are not equally selective about various television episodes and other fictional material. Yamaguchi先生08:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Our bias in favor of TV and fiction-cruft doesn't excuse bias in favor of non-notable schools. Though I'm about ready to throw up my hands and leave it to future generations of encyclopedists to sift out the cruft. flowersofnight(talk)14:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did anyone READ my long post up there? I think THAT is a claim of nobility and that program is UNIQUE to Odle. And as for vandalism, I could just go and vandalize any other page and get someone to put it up for deletion. Some Middle schools ARE NOTABLE, especially THIS ONE. Much information about the teachers aren't attacks, some of it is ACTUALLY TRUE, such as a teacher using a meterstick! (preceding unsigned comment by24.19.161.160 (talk • contribs) )
I read your long post, it is indeed a claim of notability and I'm sorry that people have ignored it. This is one reason why trying to judge schools on "notability" is not the way forward. Regarding the information about teachers, statements in wikipedia can't just be true, they also have to be verifiable if anyone is likely to dispute them, so it's best to leave them out of the article. Kappa02:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Such articles should NOT get deleted. Just because they do anyway does not mean that they should; such deletions are wrong. Kurt Weber00:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the answer is "yes", based on some of his past statements ("Every event that ever happened in the history of the world is indeed notable" [20]).
Basically, Kurt Weber seems to believe Wikipedia should be a vast informational garbage dump, a sort of Special Olympics of Data where every factoid is on equal footing with every other factoid, where my fountain pen is on par with, say, New York City, and exact one-to-one reproduction of the world, without hierarchy, ranking, or levels of importance. Jorge Luis Borges wrote about people like him in On Exactitude in Science[21]. (preceding unsigned comment byCalton (talk • contribs) )
A bit unnnice? I find it outrageous that Kurt's comments about "deletionist vandalism" (which I do not really consider a personal attack) are excised from the page, but a back-handed insult calling him retarded is somehow allowed to stand. Incivility and personal attacks by "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" are commonly allowed to stand across school AfDs while the self-appointed hall monitor cabal descends upon school inclusionists who lose their patience with castigation and threats of RfCs. In my opinion, it is partisan and unabashed partisanship.--Nicodemus7515:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the personal attacks from all of Kurt's cut-and-paste votes and griped at him on his talk page. Aaron Brenneman (who voted delete in this AFD) just griped at Calton (who also voted delete). I've griped at Denni, Gateman, Trollderella, Kurt, and you. Heck, I even defended you personally when someone was griping at you for stumping up votes. Who, exactly, are you accusing of partisanship? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've all had days where we start editting things by rote and fail to notice other examples of what we're editting, so I'm willing to give A Man In Black a free pass for removing one personal attack and not any others. And, by the by, I would consider implying "everybody who votes to delete something is intentionally causing harm to Wikipedia" a personal attack, even if I'm not exactly crying myself to sleep over how devestating the words are. Lord Bob17:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth mentioning that he says "My attitude towards policies is that one should make decisions and act based on what policy should be, not what it currently is." Dpbsmith(talk)01:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So according to Calton we are deleting things to provide wikipedia with hierarchy, ranking and levels of importance. But there are many, many things in wikipedia which are less important than New York City, how will we ever find time to delete them all? Kappa02:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's pretty funny after how I mention if anyone read my post, someone goes and says its indistinguishable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak delete Per published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more, I highly doubt that she has approaches this figure. Dottore So10:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article should be kept, author has a few books to her name, Fertray, 9 November 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
clearly, the article as written (NOT necessarily by the subject) is highly UE in form, but it is not an SD candidate, imo--FRS03:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and rewrite (I'll rewrite shortly most likely). Article does assert notability so is not a nn bio. Article says (correctly, I think) that he is CEO of Firmenich SA a 100+ year old company with 4,500 employees. --W.marsh03:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and expand the bio doesn't qualify for nn. Nor does it qualify for WP:BIO but that seems to be lacking any statement on businessmen. Patrick, only CEO for 3 years, is not so significant, but mention of Firmenich family (who have been running the cumpany for generations) should be made on the Firmenich page. jnothmantalk04:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Anyone object to a speedy? I know we've had VfDs on this sort of thing before (though I don't know if we have for pi to a milion digits). -R. fiend18:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Personally I think it is quite useful, however the comments above/below the digits need to be cleaned in my view. However I *have* managed to find a use for this before. Although, my view probably dosen't represent the community. Ian1318:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the nom said, Wikipedia isn't just a pile of every bit of verifiable information out there. I see no use for this article. --W.marsh18:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't really encyclopedic. Anyone with a computer can find out pi to one million digits, so we really don't need to be a repository for that. Mo0[talk] 18:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the delete above: No redirect. I oppose to redirect, for the reason below that one looking for Pi to one million digits will end up to Pi, where these million digits will not be found. I also propose to delete Pi to 10,000 places. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to pi, and I believe there is some discussion at Wikibooks about whether to accept such articles there. Author may care to look into that more deeply. --Kgf000:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really don't see the point of a redirect, unless you're arguing a merge as well (which I assume you're not). The article (thankfully) doesn't give pi to a million digits, so anyone doing a "pi to a million digits search" will not get what they are looking for. Might as well delete it. -R. fiend00:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have deleted this article and related images. It is a clear hoax and should have been a speedy delete. The article's author has been blocked for vandalism of user pages.Seabhcán13:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. With terms like "Clam Media", "Sp²3RMº fliud", etc., it's obviously tripe. And "Pínéis Wainc" is itself rather creatively vulgar. 70.27.59.20003:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete disagree with nomination as I, being an Irish citizen can confirm existence of the series. If the members who decided to criticsize this entry were speakers of the Irish language themselves they might understand that the language does not resemble the English language at all and as such the terms mentioned above ar completely different in meaning than what would be assumed by the English speaking community.
For instance: Pínéis Wainc translates roughly to The Devious Rogue and Clam Media translates to the Destruction Squad.
Do Not Delete -The article is not up to date and needs more information because the programme was only last week axed from the TG4 schedule. It does indeed exist but is currently battling to find another broadcaster, due to TG4's untimely cancellation. Despite the programme drawing the largest viewing audience of any programme in the 10 year history of the TG4 station and in recent years having garnered a cult like following encompassing all ages of viewers, the head of the TV station, Colmán Ó Driceoil, was forced to remove the programme from the schedule due to huge criticism from the government and others that the programme contained too many sound-alike jokes (despite having perfectly acceptable Irish language meanings)and suggestive material for a programme intended for children. The government threatened to cut funds to the station (being a semi-owned state company) if the programme continued to be aired.
Well, at least we've got another nice big entry for BJAODN. Of course if the programme was real it would have a production company, and if the production company was trying to find a broadcaster then the programme sould appear on their website. And there would be articles in the Irish newspapers. But full marks for effort. DJ Clayworth14:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then the article contradicts itself. The first paragraph says, "The programme is currently running its fourth series and the fifth is in production due to phenomenal demand." --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was set up very recently since it hasn't been indexed by Google yet. Notice how there are absolutely NO results for "pineis wainc," which doesn't make sense if the show is supposed to be popular, as you would expect fan sites or blog entries or newspaper articles or at least something to indicate it even exists. You know what, I'll see if I can find some Irish Wikipedians to weigh in on this. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely and utterly fake, also the director of TG4 at the time claimed was Cathal Goan, not the bullshit name above. --Kiand17:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I re-submit my vote to Delete this because my talkpage has being vandalised by Cliona ni riain with imagery from the so-called show. This utter seafoid, and is not to be tolerated. I am also submitting an edit ban or an outright ban on the above user based on the same incident. Thank you for your time. Fergananim12:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The words are meaningless in Irish, and in any case the language doesn't use the letter W. To get the desired sound, one would need to spell it mhainc, which loses all the visual impact of the pun. Clearly a hoax. JXM23:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The sources are at the bottom (I forgot to cite it correctly)
Also, if it's not NPOV then change it to make it be. I thought it was neutral because I clarified that most Christian hold these things to be true, but most others don't. If you know of a source that goes against these Bible references in opinion or factual evidence, such as the inhistoraccy of the Bible, add it to the Bottom. Scifiintel00:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect now that it is merged. And Scifiintel you can use <s></s> to cancel previous comments.(The keep for example). Falphin02:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a very bad article about a very real thing. Listing on AfD to give chance for expansion, formerly labeled as CSD. — PhilWelch23:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is speedy delete material at the moment under A1. One inward link from FLCL. However, it could be turned into a useful article. The cord that is part of a parachute is the ripcord. Capitalistroadster00:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anyone who knows what the words "pull" and "cord" mean know what a pull cord is. Merge any useful content into the articles about devices equipped with pull cords. flowersofnight(talk)06:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, non-notable. Not very many google hits for "radsys", and most of those are even unrelated acronyms for terms like "Regional Automated Data System", or "Rape Aggression Defense System"... Radsys.com is even for sale, which is not a good sign of a thriving concern. Postdlf01:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Just another band looking to Wikipedia to gain an audience. Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC--no album and no tours except local to date. Only outlets for their music seems to be online 'anyone can publish' websites (EG myspace.com ) and CD's pressed in their garage (or basement, or whereever), which anyone can do. 24.17.48.24102:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If nationwide tour is successful, they will likely release another album, become successful superstars and article can be written then, with mention that they were once so unknown that WP deleted them.—Gaffταλκ05:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was previously deleted in this AFD, but the page has brought up to Deletion review and some of the objections in the old afd (especially it being unsourced) were fixed. Since the page is substantially different, CSD G4 does not apply anymore. I'm relisting for courtesy, my vote is keep. Titoxd(?!?)06:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this violating the rules for Wikipedia? They cite it as colloqiual and include an outside reference to the term. Maybe instead of deletion it should be marked for more information. Kstrubb
Delete This article seems to be based solely on subjective opinions about which Southern colleges are "Ivy league-caliber." To its credit, the article now states that this is a "colloquial term" and that "the designation of "Southern Ivy" has no official meaning." However, unlike other Ivy League colloquialisms with no official meaning, "Southern Ivy" does not appear to have published material ("Public Ivies"), historical context ("Jesuit Ivy") or documented usage ("Little Ivies") to support its listing as an encyclopedia article. The sources provided (an entry from a Job-Seeking chat room and a reference to a 1960's letter to the editor from a sports blog) suggest that "Southern Ivy" has very limited currency, official or otherwise. They also reemphasize how subjective this term is. In fact, the apparent "neutral" criterion for inclusion in the article--a ranking among the top-50 in US News & World Report--does not legitimize the term any more than a similar criterion would legitimize an article on the "Midwest Ivies," the "Harvard of the West," or other inherently subjective colloquialisms. 129.105.35.13017:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question on this one is whether or not this phrase really stands on its own, or whether calling a school a [name of region] "Ivy" is just a way of opining that it is a very good regional school. I am going to try a test. I do not know yet how it will turn out. I am going to try an online search of The New York Times for the exact phrase "Southern Ivy" and the exact phrase "Southern Ivies." If either of them gets any (relevant) hits, I'll vote keep, on the assumption that if it's really a well-defined, frequently used phrase at least one mention of it should have crept into The New York Timies sometime. Otherwise, I'll vote delete. Here goes. "Southern Ivy," 2000-2005: Nope. "Southern Ivies," 2000-2005: Nope. "Southern Ivy," 1857-2000: Three hits. One reference to "Southern Ivy" as a church Easter decoration in 1902; one to a horse named "Southern Ivy" that ran in a race at Aqueduct on Nov. 24, 1999; and one to an athletic sports meet listing "Automatic NCAA Bids" where a table in which "Appalachian State...Southern" and "Pennsylvania...Ivy League" was erroneously picked up by the search engine as a reference to "Southern Ivy." "Southern Ivies," 1857-2000 picks up exactly the same hits.
Before I act precipitously, a reality check on my self-chosen criterion. A search on "little Ivies" plus "Amherst" turns up a hit mentioning "Amherst College, a partner with Williams and Wesleyan in the Little Ivy League." "Public Ivies" turns up several relevant hits, with headlines like "Ivy League Finds Itself Locked in Bidding War For Prospective Students" and "An Eminent Voice Pleads for the Soul of Rutgers" and "Suddenly, State Universities Have More Allure." Dpbsmith(talk)18:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Public Ivies" and "Little Ivies" are well-enough known and frequently-enough used to have been mentioned in the New York Times; "Southern Ivies" is not. You need not agree with my criterion, but that's the criterion I'm using. Dpbsmith(talk)18:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Waffling. On the other hand, a search in Google Groups for exact phrase "Southern Ivy" gets 25 hits, which is reasonably high for Groups (other things being equal you usually get about 1/4 to 1/10 as many hits in Groups as in a Google Web search) and most of these are colloquial uses to describe Southern schools, although a couple are to the racehorse. There are a couple of posts that suggest there is a Southern Ivy League athletic conference; is that right? My vote above stands for the moment... Dpbsmith(talk)18:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From some of those hits I got the impression there might be an actual athletic Southern Ivy League, but there isn't. this 2004 web page, answers the query: "Is there any truth to the possibility of an Ivy League South forming? Baylor, Rice, Vanderbilt and other like schools like this would form the new division" with the reply "I have not heard any serious discussion about a 'southern ivy league' forming and believe it to be highly unlikely. I believe that most of the schools that would be under consideration for such a league are fully committed to their current conferences." A Google search on ncaa "Southern Ivy League" does show that such a conference has been frequently proposed. An article about Tulane says, for example, "From the late 1950s, there was growing talk that the Green Wave could no longer compete in the SEC. A 'Southern Ivy League' consisting of schools like Rice, Southern Methodist, Duke, Vanderbilt and Tulane was constantly advocated, but each of the other schools decided to stay in their league." I'm not changing my vote, at least not for the moment; delete, but allow re-creation without prejudice as a history of the various proposals and failed efforts to create a "Southern Ivy League" athletic conference, as such an article could obviously be objective, neutral and encyclopedic. Dpbsmith(talk)19:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I still have to vote to delete. The meaning of the term is better covered at Wiktionary. The question is whether there is substance for an encyclopedia article on the Southern Ivies as they are. Since who they are is still and evermore shall be a debate (is Emory one? why not? is Tulane one? why? is Davidson one? why and why not?), there is little chance to talk definitively about what they are and what they do and what they hope for. The context is virtually impossible to establish, other than as a testimony to the inferiority complex we in the South have been handed about our schools. Geogre19:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again. Seems very close to the just-deleted Southern Ivy League article to me. If there's now a bit of evidence this phrase is, in fact, occasionally used, I don't yet see evidence that there's enough to say about it to provide even the most minimally interesting of encyclopedia articles. And it still smacks of me-too boosterism to me. -- Rbellin|Talk03:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If indeed there is "no official meaning," and this is just a way of saying "what some people consider to be prestigious universities in the south" then this does not merit an entire Wikipedia article. Perhaps an entry in Wiktionary? -172.146.86.15803:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Southerners know this term...it's used often. Just leave it alone and let a legitimate part of our culture have its place. - Vandy
If it's well-known, used often, and a part of southern culture, than it should not be difficult to provide much better source citations than the very sketchy ones we presently have. Find me a couple of good ones and I'll change my vote. I personally made a good-faith, due-diligence effort to find evidence that it is a recognized idiom in reasonaly widespread use, and did not succeed.
Let me try one more. Once again, I haven't tried this yet and don't know yet how it will turn out. To see whether the University of Vermont calls itself a "public ivy," I will perform a Google site search for site:www.uvm.edu "public ivy". 38 hits (although interestingly enough the self-references seem to be mostly to its having formerly been a "public ivy!"). Now let's try a similar search on Duke: site:www.duke.edu "Southern Ivy". No hits.
Delete. Academic boosterism. An extremely rarely-used neologism with "no official meaning" and "which schools make up the list is a matter of opinion"? WP:NOT a dictionary, a propaganda machine, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Dragonfiend17:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a JSTOR search for "southern ivy" gives meagre results, only two hits, but including the following, quoted with its most immediate context, indicating some degree of colloquial usage at the time (1967). FWIW. --u p p l a n d18:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The institutions of higher learning best understood by the North are the comparatively new private universities, such as Vanderbilt, Duke, and Emory, which are new in the sense that through large private endowments they have developed from small church colleges (Methodist in the case of the three mentioned). A university of this type will sometimes refer to itself as "the Princeton of the South" or as a member of the "Southern Ivy League." (J. Allen Smith, "The South and Foreign Affairs: The Hope for Subcultures" [review of Charles O. Lerche, Jr.: The Uncertain South, and Alfred O. Hero, Jr., The Southerner and World Affairs], in: World Politics, Vol. 19, No. 2. [Jan. 1967]. Quote from p. 349.[22])
Your search - site:www.vanderbilt.edu "southern ivy" - did not match any documents.
Your search - site:www.vanderbilt.edu "southern ivies" - did not match any documents.
Your search - site:www.emory.edu "southern ivy" - did not match any documents.
Your search - site:www.emory.edu "southern ivies" - did not match any documents.
It would seem that, as of 2005, they don't do it any more. In public, anyway.
Interestingly enough, "Princeton of the South" exact phrase gets quite a lot of Web hits, and a much larger cross-section of schools seem to get into the Princeton action than the Ivy action: Sewanee, Davidson, University of Richmond, Samford, Stewart, Rice, as well as Duke and UNC. Which leads to the question: should the Southern Ivies include all of the Princetons of the South? Dpbsmith(talk)19:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
!!!!!! There are more hits on "Harvard of the South"than on "Southern Ivies." Maybe we should move this to Harvard of the South. See this site for an amusing discussion of "Harvard of the South." The writer says that "Of those eleven states, only Alabama does not claim to have a single HotS." Dpbsmith(talk)19:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only 37 on "Yale of the South." Some of the usual suspects appear, but here we also find "University of Louisville School of Law, the Yale of the South." Is the Yale of the South a Southern Ivy, then? How about the University of Arizona, another "Yale of the South?" This site calls Sewanee the "Cornell of the South;" This one calls Davidson the "Dartmouth of the South;" this one bestows that honor on Rice.
Well, is someone going to add Sewanee (my gosh, it's both the Princeton and the Cornell of the South), Davidson, Rice, University of Louisville School of Law, and University of Arizona to the article? And if not, why not? Dpbsmith(talk)20:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I must admit I had never heard of some of these universities, such as Sewanee, for instance (but it looks nice, judging from their website). This was funny, but I can't really understand why anybody going to the University of Virginia would want to be at the Harvard of the South rather than at The University Actually Designed by Thomas Jefferson.
Perhaps, as a foreigner with no connection to either the American South or the Ivy League, I may be regarded as a somewhat neutral observer. My take on this issue is that an article like this should be about (an aspect of) academic boosterism, and about what appears to be a Southern inferiority complex, and include a discussion on the use of epithets referring to individual Ivy League universities, such as "Harvard/Yale/Princeton of the South", as well. u p p l a n d21:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a U. S. citizen living in a state was not in the Confederacy: before checking our our article, I vaguely knew Sewanee as a "good small liberal-arts college." I'm surprised that they call themselves "The University of the South" and quickly peeking at their website I don't know where they get the "University" appelation; I suppose because they have a College of Arts and Sciences and a School of Theology. They are best known to me (and many others) as publishers of the "Sewanee Review," which carries some weight in lit-crit circles. It seems bizarre to me to make a serious comparison between it and Harvard or Princeton, unless you are only comparing undergraduate colleges... I suppose it might bear comparison to Williams or Amherst, which would presumably make it a "Southern Little Ivy..."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Yes, but what's your reasoning? Should everybody write an article about him- or herself and then claim that it should be kept merely because it's about him- or herself? -- Hoary10:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I said it reads like one, not that it is one. The article looks like it's written by Steven Tee Ah Seng to claim "look, this is how good a company owner I am!" — JIP | Talk11:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong "nobody better dare disagree" keep. The CD exists, and is by Jean-Louis Aubert. I have corrected the article, and uploaded an image of the album cover. Zeimusu, although you may have got it wrong in this case, I do applaud your efforts in trying to verify this album's existence. Would that all AfDers tried so! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable album by notable artist and move to Stockholm (Jean-Louis Aubert album) or similar with this as a disambiguation page with a link to the Triffids album. Albums do not have to sell a million to be influential. For example, none of the Velvet Underground's did. Never Mind the Bollocks by the Sex Pistols may now have just sold a million but it is a closerun thing. The Sun Sessions featuring Elvis Presley's early work at Sun Records would be struggling to reach a million yet these are hugely influential records. Besides, such an arbitrary limit would be a systematic bias against artists from smaller countries such as Australia and New Zealand. Capitalistroadster17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This whole page seems to be a vanity page made by a rapper to market himself. Note the overly gushing tone of the text, at the very least it's not 'encyclopedic.' 132.162.214.13302:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google search for "Tarek Bouz" produces 4 results, none of which seem to be related to this. Non-notable and/or unverifiable. Delete.Joel768704:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Vanity page, written in the first person, about the founder of a company -- whose current head posted the page. -- Hoary06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A well-written article about a good-looking webcomic... which unfortunately seems to be entirely non-notable, with an Alexa rank of 2,686,686. - Squibix14:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This comic indeed has seen print. It's available in 6 shops in Australia or to buy online. I don't think it's been picked up by a major publisher by any means and is probably self published or a very small local publisher. The forums have 50 members. A google search for Terinu or Terinu comic picks up very little. But this seems to be a primarily PRINT comic, with print editions appearing before web editions. I've not voted on this one because I don't know how popular the thing is in the local area, but I would be erring on delete. - Hahnchen19:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this comic is notable in print, then someone should edit the article to mention that. Right now it's described as a webcomic, with no mention of any print presence at all; and as a webcomic it's clearly non-notable. Besides the alexa rank and the 50 forum members Hahnchen mentions, it also is reported to get an average of 138 views a month [24] (if thewebcomiclist.com is to be believed. - Squibix13:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Since the nomination (which I've fixed up by adding the template) was so utterly awful, I suppose it behoves me to provide a better one. The article appears to be a poorly-written and poorly-formatted script written by young teenagers. It is not even an attempt at an encyclopaedia article, and can surely be safely deleted with no fuss or muss. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article nominated by Mr Bellis is not the article we see before us now. The "kiddie drivel" was in fact vandalism, which I've now reverted. All is well with the world, and I'm sure this AfD can be safely closed "keep" with neither fuss nor muss. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You really think 99% of school articles aren't just ugly little stubs started by a 12 year old that attends the school? Prototc16:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Besides which - there is nothing wrong with being a 12 year-old high school student. I was one myself once. --Cnwb05:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the last 275 or so verifiable high schools to be nominated. These nominations are just a waste of everyone's time. CalJW16:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a High School, it's been around for over a hundred years, and since I haven't seen the "kiddie drivel" or vandalism that earlier users noted, I suspect that this article could easily have encyclopedic value. --Martin Osterman16:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the consensus has been developing at WP:SCH for two days now. And preceedent is also VERY much in favor of keeping high schools (as distastful as I find it personally). Just as preceedent and consensus are for deleting all preschools.Gateman199720:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there's been a consensus per Gateman's comment above we should be consistent in applying this. Gateman, can you point to where specifically that consensus is shown? -- Ian ≡ talk02:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally flagged thus up for deletion when I saw the long, 100% vandalism version and failed to check the history - sorry. Personally I went to bog-standard comprehensive which is never going to warrant an entry, but this article is now harmless enough so it might as well stay.--JBellis12:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:NOT. If what it says there is too much for you to agree with, then by all means feel free to start your own encyclopedia. Denni☯01:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete.
I decided to bend the rules a bit and speedy this. Here's why. First of all, the article says in no uncertain terms that the band does not meet the music guidelines, so three's no need for the review process that is allowed by AfD but not by CSD. More importantly, the article is basically an ad for the band's gig in a week or so. By keeping this up for several days the article will have served its purpose as an ad, and it will encourage other bands to get 5 days of free advertizing for their gigs by writing such articles (the fact that few people are likely to view the ads is beside the point). Keeping these for any length of time is a bad precedent. -R. fiend21:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as blatant copyvio that had also been posted under different titles.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The creator of this article later had doubts about the accuracy. Other people have been unable to verify it. ZPMMaker of the Cleanup Taskforce investigated, and was unable to confirm it after exhaustive checking, see notes at talk:Transcience of time. There fore, propose delete as inaccurate. RJFJR17:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Part of several probable vanity articles. Movie is not listed on IMDB, no media coverage, only google result is the WP article. Claim that it's won awards can't be verified. Looks quite non-notable, just some amateur film. W.marsh06:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As the author said in the article, this is a personal essay. It can't be speedy deleted because I don't know whether the blurb on the top of the article is a request or not. It could be a copyvio, but I can't find a definite source. The very interesting article from which the information here is drawn can be found here, but it hasn't been copied exactly. Delete this copy as a personal essay. Graham/pianoman87talk00:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hope that someone cleans up the grammar and makes it more encyclopedic. I believe the material dealt with is encyclopedic, but the structure is essay-like(e.g. facts should be moved to the front and examples later on, instead of the reverse). After a restructure it could be quite appropriate for Wikipedia. A1kmm11:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. If another performs the transwiki, that's fine, but original research is not allowable in wikipedia space. Geogre18:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or cleanup. it's an important topic, and books like Demonic Males : Apes and the Origins of Human Violence and Peacemaking among Primates make it clear that it's widely studied. But until somebody gets the urge to write an encyclopedic overview, this should be nixed. --William Pietri18:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First: Content here is licensed under the GFDL, not the GPL. Second: Please refresh your memory of our no original research official policy, which answers that question. Third: Please explain, as asked above, why you think that original research falls within Wikibooks' remit. Uncle G10:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We really need to stop this before more Everything2 essays get placed onto Wikipedia! They clearly break WP:NOT a soapbox and WP:NOR. We also really need to merge these essay AfDs into one. Wcquidditch | Talk01:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete 1) original research 2) poor quality. This is really high-school level thinking, and not the level of analysis or accuracy required for an encyclopedia. Moving the content of this article to other pieces would only lead to having to fix the other articles afterwards. Pete.Hurd18:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't exist within the guidelines for inclusion. The band has no official releases of any kind, has done no significant touring of any kind and is not a significant Australian metal act. The entry reads like a band web 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not only is it nothing but a dictionary definition with no hope of improvement, it's a bogus neologism to boot. Yields only 221 hits on Google, pathetic considering its obvious leet nature, and those are primarily because people use it as a handle. I couldn't find any reliable support for the purported meaning. --Michael Snow20:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. This is an article on a song from Kanye West'sThe College Dropout album. It wasn't a hit song nor has it won significant awards. Normally, the contents on an article on a non-notable song on a notable album would be to merge. However, the contents of the article don't warrant merging. Capitalistroadster06:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable, unverifiable, and/or prank. Zero relevant hits for "Thaddeus Gulden" and I didn't see any thing searching for "Wheelchair Kid" that referred to this person/situation. Zero relevant hits for an image search for "Wheelchair Kid". Based on the contributor's username, appears to be self-promotion, as well. Judging by the history, it seems the topic has been deleted from a couple other language Wikipedias already. (previous afd posting was blanked out of process by article contributor[25]--I had added it the same time as Simply Insane--10/24). 24.17.48.24102:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: The article seems to fib. No productions, apparently, and not "heard internationally on MTV." No specification in the article of how these things are true, no verifiability. Geogre16:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Hoax. Internal contradictions, impossibilities, no record of any of it, plus the borrowings from "The Outlaw Josie Wales." Geogre16:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Vanity. Does not meet WP:MUSIC and allmusic.com does not know him or his band. Unhelpfully Pettigrew was added to Hammond organ in the list of Notable Hammond organ players (naturally not in the correct alpha sort position in the list)—I have removed that entry. 66.191.124.23607:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was
delete. I also observe that it would be highly unlikely that someone would type this article's name into the search box. Denelson8302:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only does it read like an ad, but it doesn't even say what city this restaurant is located in (it happens to be Orlando, Florida). I can't verify that the McDonald's restaurant described in this article is even the world's largest, although the McDonald's article says it is. I've seen claims that the world's largest McDonald's is in Moscow, Beijing, and even Vinita, Oklahoma. Then again, this one might be only the largest entertainment McDonald's and PlayPlace, which would not be enough to make it notable. --Metropolitan9005:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep 4-star AMG pick album from a notable band with WP article. Unless there's some precedent for albums I'm unaware of. --W.marsh05:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
01:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
09:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
06:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]