Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 25 October 27 >

Purge server cache

October 26

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 HappyCamper 03:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Day In The Park

[edit]

Non-notable short film. Note: Director of film is also up for AfD above. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:40, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 03:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbott, Edith & Grace

[edit]

This page is adequately covered under each of the two sisters' own articles. Therefore, we do not need a joint article. Ian Cairns 00:18, 26 October 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 --JAranda | watz sup 00:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

African cherry orange

[edit]

There is hardly any information on this webpage, and it should be deleted. Jakewater 00:40, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 03:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Justa Giver

[edit]

Frasority with 130 members, established in 2004. 4 original Google results. -- Kjkolb 08:04, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 03:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Stubbings

[edit]

Vanity article. r3m0t talk 14:48, 26 October 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 to Anime. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animay

[edit]

No claims to this being an important website. Also, the link provided did not work for me. Delete. —Gaff ταλκ 02:46, 26 October 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 NO CONSENSUS. By counting the raw votes, the consensus seems to be "keep", but User:Mikkalai has responded to pretty much every keep vote, claiming that although the Nazis did have anti-Slavic sentiment, "anti-Slavism" as a term by itself is not very notable. Therefore I'm taking his comments as counter-votes to the keep votes. — JIP | Talk 19:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Slavism

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: important for realpolitic

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (8k, 1d). --Scimitar parley 16:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apollonius the Sophist

[edit]

NN fan/scholarcruft D Pwqn 19:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few additions. Here (in Spanish) Apollonius is quoted on the etymology of nectar (page 153). Ejrrjs | What? 00:35, 27 October 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 HappyCamper 03:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asset excellence

[edit]

Unencyclopeidc essay, delete.--nixie 04:39, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 03:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barrelanza

[edit]

Fiction. Alleged Australian semi-religious festival held just prior to Christmas. Zero search engine hits. -- RHaworth 00:21, 26 October 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 20K 4D --JAranda | watz sup 01:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonne High School

[edit]

NN, not encyclopedic cohesion | talk 02:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well, I came back to look at this a couple days later, sorry for posting this, I wasn't, at the time, aware that school article's notability was so drastically different from other articles. When this was nominated it was a very small and seemingly non-notable stub. I know now that school articles are seen differently and are somewhat controversial. The idea that I am AFD spamming is a little extreme, I think this is the only school article I have ever submitted, certainly the only one in months. For the people that assumed I was doing this malevolently, I can only assure you that I wasn't. cohesion★talk 07:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of those who have reacted strongly against your nomination, it can be difficult to keep track (at a glance) of whether a school on AfD is the result of a multi-nominator or not. Many WP policies and guidelines are so frequently ignored by many people on both sides of this debate and the constant level of acrimony was probably not directed at you specifically. Your nomination also happened to be sandwiched in with some nominations by User:ComCat, who is a habitual nominator of schools to AFD - likely sparking the confusion.--Nicodemus75 08:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, that explains a lot. Still, I would like to think this is a forum for getting consensus regarding whether or not an article should stay in wikipedia rather than an article death sentence. I don't always know how people will react when things are nominated, but at the same time I am willing to accept whatever the consensus is. I like, and will retain that view rather than the more cynical view that everything here has nominators that are fighting tooth and nail to have their article deleted. - cohesion★talk 08:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your idealism is admirable, unfortunately a number of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" on the basis of the article being either a stub or "non-notable" have expressed the position that they engage in this process to "keep others honest" and "to see a victory of even one crappy school article deleted".--Nicodemus75 23:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a compelling reason not to attack people for doing things in good faith? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a small point, but there is no 'need' to demonstrate notability. Trollderella 15:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrating notability is required for articles on bands, people, books, websites, etc. I don't see why schools should be any different. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 27 October 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 HappyCamper 03:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bug People

[edit]

Unlikely and unsupported claims which I can't verify; Google searches for terms like "bug people"+"WCW vs the world" and "bug people"+"meaning of life" produce no useful results. Oh, and given that so far as I can tell WCW vs the World wasn't released until the spring of 1997, this smells strongly of a hoax. — Haeleth Talk 15:19, 26 October 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldean Town, Detroit

[edit]

Not sure if this actually exists. Google search found only one useful link - the top ones link to us and it's a two liner! Does this exist, or is it patent nonsense? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. There are Chaldean & Arabic neighborhoods in Detroit; primarily found in the Warrendale area and around 7 Mile west of Woodward. "Chaldean Town" is not a term used by the vast majority of Detroiters and surrouding suburbanites. There are areas of Detroit that are commonly referred to by their ethnic demographic (like Mexican Town), but the "Chaldean Federation of America" link Ta bu shi da yu added is the first time I've ever heard "Chaldean Town" term... and I grew up in an area with a large Chaldean population. It appears that the term has been mentioned here: [1], but this could just be a pickup of the CFA press releases and mentions in Wikipedia articles (this term has been entered into the main Detroit article). I'm going to do a bit more research because this has piqued my interest, but for now I consider this term a neologism that is not in wide usage when compared to other Detroit neighborhood names like Corktown, Poletown, Mexicantown, Indian Village, Springwells, etc.
I meant for that to be a comment whilst I research this.--Isotope23 15:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, term has apparently been picked up and used locally. Apparently Chaldean merchants in the 7 mile area have attempted to create an economic district akin to Greektown. This has not been overly successful, probably due to their location (Greektown has proximity to downtown Detroit; Chaldean Town does not). Couple this fact with the relative newness of the effort (circa 1999) and this would explain why the term is not in wider usage. However, it has been referenced here: [[2]], [[3]], and [[4]]. Conceivably, I can see someone doing any sort of research on Detroit's ethnic neighborhoods finding this information useful, so I say keep and I will do a rewrite.--Isotope23 16:00, 26 October 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 (obviously). -Doc (?) 22:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Super Smash Bros. Revolution

[edit]

From the article's lead section: "That is why I made this page on Wikepedia, so people can write down the chatacters they would like to see in the game. All the info is not real, it is just so you can see what others think". It's a well-meaning article, but not encyclopedic. Perhaps we can have an article with this title someday, but right now it is 100% speculation, and it cannot currently be rewritten until we actually know what characters will be in Super Smash Bros. Revolution. Coffee 15:36, 26 October 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. — ceejayoz talk 23:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Kelly

[edit]

Article tottaly irrelevant. It is a glory page. Remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.41.34 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Kelly appears to be a notable person. Head of a major public service organization in the U.K., and held high ranking posts in the British government prior to that. Brandon39 10:16, 26 October 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 as rewritten by User:Polotet. — JIP | Talk 19:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarecraft

[edit]

Blatant advertising. Denni☯ 02:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, speedy as {{db-copyvio}} ? --Vsion 04:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following excellent rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 07:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for copyright violations only applies to commercial content providers, which means they make their money by selling the content that has been posted, such as a newspaper or encyclopedia. It doesn't apply to advertisements. -- Kjkolb 12:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant advertising, copyvio or not. And yes, copyright can apply to advertising copy as well. - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on rewrite. The rewrite is good but the notability of a private company which is about to close its doors after not much more than a decade in business is disputable. Oh, and "nearly unique" grates, too. - Just zis Guy, you know? 07:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and "nearly unique" grates, too. Ugh, for good reason, it's very sloppy diction. Don't know how that slipped past my internal editor, thanks for pointing it out. --Polotet 08:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyright does indeed apply to advertising copy, but the special speedy criterion does not (see WP:CSD and its talk page). This is because the copyright holders are quilte likely to be only too willing to allow us to use their ad copy, while the copyright speedy is only for cases where we can be pretty near 100% sure no permission will be granted even if we ask nicely. The regular {{copyvio}} tag can be used in such cases, however. DES (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvvious advertising, not encyclopedic, no indication of notability. I can't find the text on the wesite given as the soruce currently, so the copyvio issue is somewhat moot. DES (talk)
  • Speedy DeleteAdvertising *Keep following rewrite.prashanthns
  • Seeing the poor quality of this article inspired me to finally make an account to provide information on what I believe is a fairly notable company, as a large scale producer of merchandise for an extremely popular series of novels. If it helps, the search term Clarecraft yields 53,700 results, and at the very least the entire first few pages are all references to the company and not from Wikipedia. There are also a number of Clarecraft products currently available on Ebay. I suspect my vote may be discounted as I'm an extremely new user, but I'll vote keep anyway. If anyone notices any Wikipedia style mistakes in my rewrite, I'd appreciate if you clean them up or let me know. I've also posted on their website's forum asking for some more information about some things I thought might fit in the article which I couldn't find on the web. Polotet 02:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, you did a nice job. Unfortunately, I think there's a difficulty with the topic (not your writing). I'm not sure they're that special, given they don't make it, and our now going out of business. One key that's needed for a business, is independent sources that gives verifiable information, and shows interest about the company beyond the company itself. I suspect such sources don't exist. Although, if found, and you add them to the article, that would increase the likely retention. If you have to ask the company directly for information that's a problem, since we can't use unverifiable information. Anyway, I hope you do more rewrites, but on topics more likely to be kept. I'll abstain for now (I really haven't spent adequate time investigating this company, and based my prior vote just on it being an ad). --rob 03:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the compliment and the advice. Is this the kind of thing you're looking for? It's an article in a published magazine in England about Discworld collectibles which confirms some of the information in the article. I've added it to the Clarecraft entry. Polotet 03:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (barely) - This is now verifiable and seems notable to some in a specific area, so I'll go along with a couple switch voters. I think even more independent sources are still warranted, but I think the original reasons for deletion don't apply. --rob 03:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just wanted to note here that through the magic of LexisNexis, I was able to find and provide in the entry a couple more articles, along with some new information. --Polotet 07:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As rewritten it has a much more encyclopedic tone, and at least some indications of notability. These are still marginal IMO, but just barely enough for me to switch to a Weak Keep. I note that one of the cited news stories makes a good deal of this having been one of (perhaps the very) last manufatureing establishemnts in the UK. This is a quite separate ground of notability, and should probably be mentioned in the article. DES (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weakish) keep. They're not hugely notable, but Discworld is very popular; doing Discworld figurines (even if they're about to go out of business) makes them at least somewhat notable. (Oh, and Polotet? That's a good rewrite.) -- Captain Disdain 15:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shame to see this article go to waste. TDS (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 October 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 HappyCamper 03:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Alliance Trooper

[edit]

Article in Hungarian, has been on WP:PNT since 11 October. Physchim62 18:27, 26 October 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. — JIP | Talk 20:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Counting coo

[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P. P. S. I believe it must be familiar to readers of Western novels. The same A9 search shows me that a recent Robert Parker novel, Appaloosa, a James Patterson novel, Roses are Red, and a Tom Clancy novel, Debt of Honor, all mention the phrase, in some cases without much explanation. Clancy just assumes you know what it means: "Some of his people had to be counting coup in a big way, full of themselves in the way of fighter pilots who had done the job and lived to tell the tale." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P. P. P. S. It's in the dictionary: Noun... 3. Among certain Native American peoples, a feat of bravery performed in battle, especially the touching of an enemy's body without causing injury. Idiom: count coup Among certain Native American peoples, to ceremoniously recount one's exploits in battle. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:50, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 03:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CVS Suite

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 HappyCamper 03:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Massey

[edit]

Unverifiable ... vanity ... nnbio ... patent nonsense ... BJAODN ... original research ... spam ... hoax ... vandalism ... this is the perfect AfD article! Ziggurat 03:39, 26 October 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 nonsense dicdef. -Doc (?) 22:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Databi

[edit]

User-created neoligsm. No such word exists. Nameneko 07:33, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 03:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Zaks

[edit]

I can't find any verification that a "famous composer" by this name exists. Previous edits by the article's original author make me question its veracity. Joyous (talk) 16:37, 25 October 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 HappyCamper 03:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death By A Rose

[edit]

not notable per WP:MUSIC cohesion | talk 03:00, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 03:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derego Williams Sr.

[edit]

Sixteen Google hits for "Derego Williams", not all, surprisingly enough, to do with this one. No Google hits for "Derego Williams""Main Street 500". Denni☯ 01:17, 26 October 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 speedily deleted by Scimitar as a non-notable biography; no claim to notability was made.--Scimitar parley 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Division 867

[edit]

American rapper who has "released one mixtape with his friend", and "has never officially released an album and has never been signed to a record label." Therefore not notable. Francs2000 17:02, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 03:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake Help

[edit]

Vanity page for an earthquake blog. Blog looks informative, but doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a page. JJay 17:49, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 03:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky f'tang-zoop-boing! Goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv

[edit]

We are no longer the Knights Who Say Ni. We do not believe this individual line from one of the best movies ever is notable enough to merit its own article. Delete. — JIP | Talk 09:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant_>|< 17:17, 29 October 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 --HappyCamper 03:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editors Keys Ltd

[edit]

Non-notable vanity (spam) - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think its needs editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.202.130 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-28 15:07:33 (UTC) (User's only other edits are linkspam related to this company — Haeleth Talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 HappyCamper 03:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Evans

[edit]

Can't tell if this is actually an article or stream of concious poetry. Lots of google hits and maybe a fictional character?? I sent the contributor a message... —Gaff ταλκ 03:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete: you freakin' wikinazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.218.223 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-26 15:16:43 (UTC) (again)

who cares: If Emily Evans claims all this stuff about herself then who are we to stop her? I'm sure lots of women have been with the Edge and don't show on Google searches - define noteriety. Who the hell cares who Emily Evans is anyway?


I am a family member, and Nicolla Tesla was my great grandfather. The fact that this person is proclaiming that she invented the Tesla coil is propostorous. I am deeply hurt considering that my grandfather spent his years having his co-scientist stealing his ideas from him, makes me very angry indeed. I want to find this Emily Evans and tell her that she is a liar, and will spend an eternity in burning hell crying for her deeds, and no pharmacology will be there to help dry those tears. I tell you people she lies through her teeth. Despite her vulgar lies I truly liked "It reeks of cat piss in this van." it reminds me when I go apple picking with my family, and my late grandfather would piss in the back seat.

DO NOT DELETE-I can't believe no one has heard of emily evans. Need a pop culture brush up much? Only one of the most influential artists of the last five centuries! Get real wikipedia! [edit] delete

If Derrida was her father and Plath was her mother (making the rash conclusion she is real) couldn't she have made up a more creative name than Evans? Not only is all of this ludicris but it stinks of literary canniballism. In fact, some of those ideas are mine. Dang.

It's about freaking time someone objected to the whole tesla coil lie. Thank you angry serb. Everyone's like, as if she had sex with the Edge. No one's like Wasn't Nicolla Tesla the inventor of the Tesla coil? Hence the name? Gawd. you'd think encyclopedia people would know a little better. And besides. How is sourcing with the net a form of validation? IT'S ALL LIES. And we're all damned without embellishment.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 by Bumm13 as copyvio. --GraemeL (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eroi

[edit]

Blatant advertising. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Article has been deleted as it was unsolicited advertising. Feel free to remove this entry from AfD.)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 HappyCamper 03:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethannoise

[edit]

Nn band, not at amazon as claimed, nor at allmusic. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC. the wub "?!" 15:39, 26 October 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene F. Provenzo

[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:28, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 03:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction (band)

[edit]

I nominated this for deletion on October 1. No one voted, but instead of relisting the admin closed it as no consensus. I am relisting it myself, and my statement "No AllMusic entry, only album gets 171 google hits." still stands. Come on, voters, this is an easy one. Punkmorten 20:47, 26 October 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 MERGE with Geography of Romania. — JIP | Talk 07:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme points of Romania

[edit]

I can't see this becoming a proper article. Perhaps merge this with Geography of Romania-- A bit iffy 11:43, 26 October 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. 20 keep votes and 4 delete votes is a pretty clear consensus. — JIP | Talk 07:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme points of U.S. states, Extreme points of Canadian provinces

[edit]

There are extreme points of states that have found their way into culture, like John o'Groats in Scotland, Cabo da Roca in Portugal, "where the land ends and the sea begins", or the 38th parallel in Korea.

These two lists, on the contrary, are just a collection of map trivia; anyone interested in the borders of states will consult a map. Pilatus 15:11, 26 October 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Milka

[edit]

Google returned about a dozen results for either Flaming Milka or Amelia Milka Sablich. If other sources can be found-i.e., contemporary newspaper articles-this might be notable and verifiable, but as it stands, it doesn't appear to be either. Paul 15:52, 4 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 HappyCamper 03:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FLMH

[edit]

Apparent vanity, five hits off google, two from the same site, and one from the founder's site. MacRusgail 20:06, 26 October 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 Merge with "Rocheworld" - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flouwen

[edit]

Fictional alien species that appears in one novel. Not encyclopedic at all. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:50, 26 October 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 NO CONSENSUS. User:Sir Lewk is a real user, not a sock puppet, even though is keep vote was first added by an anonymous IP. Therefore 2 delete votes versus 1 keep vote is too narrow a margin. — JIP | Talk 08:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fog Creek Copilot

[edit]

Brand new, just launched in August and seems pretty NN. Devotchka 21:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:" The article doesn't seem to make any attempt to establish critical differences between this and Microsoft's inbuilt remote assistance. Some indication of how many users / sites are covered might help in establishing whether it is worthy of note. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:55, 31 October 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 (no consensus). I did vote in this debate, arguing for deletion, and I still believe that this article ought to be deleted. However, there is an even split among those who want this kept and those who want this deleted. Therefore, there is no other option than to keep this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Alexander (US Army soldier)

[edit]

Sad but still NN, D. ComCat 00:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep & rewrite. He's the 2000th American forces casaulty in the war, meaning he's getting quite a lot of attenion here in the States: [7] I admit it's a bit arbitrary to include him but not the other 1,999, but it's the mass media that establishes notability, and the mass media loves numbers that you can divide by 100 and 1000, much like the faux-millennium mania we had a few years back. Changed my mind, everyone else is right. Delete StarryEyes 02:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete NN plus not encyclopedic Ejrrjs | What? 00:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no memorial. Maybe mention the soldier at Cindy Sheehan, and the date at US invasion of Iraq. Gazpacho 01:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep real person, real soldier. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 01:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And really non-notable. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete but condolences to his family. Wikipedia is not a memorial and I disagree with StarryEyes that just because he had the misfortune to be #2000 he is any more notable than the other 1999 who gave their lives. The media may be giving it press right now, but sadly by next week his name will be all but forgotten by everyone but his family, friends, and those in his unit who survived him.--Isotope23 02:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The article makes no assertion of notability. Even if it did, Wikipedia is not a memorial. —Cryptic (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable because of the 2000 number, plain and simple. He personally is all over the news, for chrissake his name and picture is the front of CNN.com right now and I promise that its on the front of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Christian Science Monitor in 4 or 5 hours. If that isn't notability, I obviously dont understand the concept. --CastAStone 02:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Isotope23, his fame is transitory and there is nothing special about him compared to the others who died. -- Kjkolb 03:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, encyclopedic. Kappa 04:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOT.--nixie 04:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please merging this to cindy sheehan would make no sense this person has received individual national news coverage in teh united states so if we want to be the sum of human knowledge we should include this too people might want to learn about him here Yuckfoo 05:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentioning at Cindy Sheehan makes perfect sense, since she promised she would make a scene when the 2000th soldier died. It would be stupid to have an article about this person just because he got killed when he did and not an hour earlier or later. Gazpacho
  • Delete. Maybe we should have a list of casualities instead though? And that list can be expanded upon a bit? Else, we *do* run into a problem every conflict where the 1st, 5th, 10th, 100th, etc. all get their own pages... also, it kinda smacks of bias in reporting... we certainly don't have a page for the 200th Iraqi.Janet13 07:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Notable. Even if he will be forgotten by the media, his death is a big media event. Take Jessica Lynch for example. Banes 09:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dying as a soldier in Iraq doesn't make a person encyclopedically notable, and being number 2000 doesn't change that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No more or less significant than the other 1999 who have died. Isotope's point above is eloquently made. Including him as encyclopedic and not the others is, in fact, rather offensive. Dottore So 10:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, WP:NOT a memorial. This shouldn't even be a difficult decision. Proto t c 11:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as Wikipedia isn't a memorial. I'm not even sure if this merits a single sentence in Iraq War. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I am sorry that he was killed, but this death is no more or less significant than the previous US deaths in this conflict; nor the >>20,000,000 deaths in combat of all nationalities in the last century. Sliggy 15:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I understand that notability should not be established simply on the basis of numbers, however I am convinced the article should be retained. A baby being born is a regular occurence, sure, but Nevic sure got a lot of attention becuase she was the 6,000,000,000th by the UN [8]. Furthermore, Alexander should stand, in a sense, is a representative for the several hundreds of men who have lost their lives in Iraq. As the 2,000th soldier to die, he will, in my opinion, serve as a reprensentative for the 1,999 who died before him. It would be cordial to make an article about each of the brave men who died in the War in Iraq, but such is not plausible for an encyclopedia. Thus, a brief mention of Alexander - in my opinion - would give some type of recognition besides that found in the War on Terrorism articles, etc. I think that this article should be kept. Molotov (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was a difficult decision to make. On the one hand, WP:NOT a memorial, and having the misfortune of being the Nth person to die divisible by 1000 does not automatically make one notable. So while I do not disagree with many of the reasons provided by those who wish to delete this article, I must dissent; this death has been widely covered by the media, news.google.com returns over 1,000 articles which mention this specific person by name. If the media decides to make this person a poster child for all of the other fallen soldiers in Iraq, then this person does become significantly notable, or notable enough that people may look to Wikipedia for additional information about this person. I would liken this to the Natalee Holloway disappearance case; from a distance Natalee Holloway is one of 800,000 children who are reported missing each year, yet she is notable due to the mass news coverage she received. It is too soon to tell if George Alexander will receive the same type of media attention that Holloway did, but nonetheless they are both notable because of the attention they received, thus my vote of support to include this article. Hall Monitor 17:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Mr. Alexander's death becomes the flashpoint for an increased anti-war movement in the United States or receives a massive amount of news coverage for a prolonged period of time ala Natalee Holloway I would be inclined to agree with you Hall Monitor. Mr. Alexander would indeed be notable then, but at this point that is a crystal ball scenario and there is no credible evidence that either of those things will happen.--Isotope23 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The crystal ball argument is a double edged sword. Time will tell if this person will become a flashpoint or not, but right now this person is receiving a considerable amount of media attention. I have reasonable doubt that this article should or should not be deleted, and as per WP:DEL: "If in doubt, don't delete!" I respect and understand the varying arguments being presented here, but I do not necessarily agree with them. Hall Monitor 20:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Having his fifteen minutes of fame in the United States, apparently, but Wikipedia is also not an American newspaper. Lord Bob 19:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least as notable as Jessica Lynch, his name has been all over the media.  ALKIVAR™ 19:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. He was doing his job. Unfotunate that he got killed but being killed doing your job doesn't make you notable. chowells 21:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm going to change my vote. Widespread media coverage is sufficient notability. He may not be any more or less notable than the 1 999 who fell before him (let alone the Iraqis or British or other troops that have died) but maybe he can become a reminder of the sad state of our world today, in the same way that Anne Frank has come to represent the millions that died in the holocaust. Maybe after near nuclear annihilation in World War 3 someone will read this article and be more determined to put forward the ideals of people that I respect highly such as Józef Rotblat. chowells 10:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: George Alexander was not notable for his life in any particular regard, but his death is very notable in that his death set the milestone of the 2,000th KIA in this war and is receiving a great deal of media attention which is a matter of permanent record and future interest. You can be sure that the 3,000th KIA will ignite the same kind of contentions that are being presented here. In any event, his sacrifice stands as a rallying point for opposition to this war and as such is a matter of historical importance.

That's part of the problem.... right now the article isn't encyclopaedic, ie biographical. It's just about the fact he is number 2000 and discussions about that in the media and some Congressmen.--Kalsermar 22:30, 30 October 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. (article was already speedied)-- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glencoe hedge fund

[edit]

How is this different from any other hedge fund? Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Most convertible arbitrage funds are delta/market neutral and are stuck because there is too much money using the same approach. This year a lot of traditional convertible arbitrage funds closed shop causing an implosion in convertible securities pricing. It is for the first time in more than 10 years since conservative delta neutral funds displayed 30% + volatility without any external market events like a surge in interest rates (1994)or the Russinan defaults in 1989. Glencoe is different. It starts off as delta neutral and becomes directional. The CSFB convertible arbitrage index representing well established large funds with a long track record did 19% between oct 2001 and oct 2003. The invesment club experiment did 61% and Glencoe continues the 30% + annualized track record through Dec 2004. It ranked #1 in AbsoluteReturn magazine on an annualized compounded basis through end of Dec 2004.

As a side comment to the previous 2 where does it say that a fund has to have a long track record or be large in order for it to publish information about it on Wikipedia? or maybe the 2 gentlemen above work in sales for competitors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.2.90 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'll start by pointing out that Glencoe previously passed through Afd where it was deleted after a unanimous vote. [[9]] The article therefore may be a Speedy Delete per G4.
Regarding your question, I suggest you read WP:CORP. Glencoe seems to fail at every level. It has not received any notable press coverage. It is not a component of any of the leading hedge fund indexes including CSFB/Tremont, Dow Jones Hedge Fund Index [[10]] or the S&P Hedge Fund Index [[11]]. It does not hold a 20% share of its market, etc.
Wikipedia does generally preclude advertising and self-promotion as per Wikipedia:Spam. It requires notability for inclusion. These were the reasons for the article's deletion in September. Further, your discussion of the fund's strategy, while interesting, hardly seems unique and is largely unverifiable. It therefore qualifies as OR.
Finally, I am not making millions working for a hedge fund. I do not work in the financial industry. If I did, it is highly unlikely I would be trying to plug my firm through Wikipedia. --JJay 17:20, 27 October 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 deleted under A7. A clearly absurd claim to fame (world's longest 30 second speech) isn't a proper assertion of notability. Friday (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Preston

[edit]

non-notable, possible joke or spam page. Guinness site has no "glenn preston" on its search, and the other site likewise from what I could tell. Delete-- Syrthiss 12:40, 26 October 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grove School moved to Grove School (Madison, Connecticut)

[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:28, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 03:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Habbo Paper

[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - that old strawman... Come on, surely you can do better. Trollderella 15:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article but merge content into Habbo Hotel. This particular fansite is not worthy of its own article. --TantalumTelluride 20:26, 27 October 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 HappyCamper 03:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hamo Field

[edit]

Appears to be pure vanity. — Anarchivist | Talk 18:35, 26 October 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 uhhhhhh... no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

14 keep, 11 delete, 8 merge. (Votes such as 'keep or merge' and 'merge or delete' are counted as just 'merge') - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

High School tram stop

[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It means its non-notable, delete it. ComCat 00:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of a series of articles, so why delete this one in particular? Similar articles exist for railway stations, tube stations and tram stops on Midland Metro and Sheffield Supertram. I fail to see the logic for this nomination. Our Phellap 00:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean anything. There is nothing about notability in deletion policy. Deletion policy does not allow for as much deletion as ComCat's appetite requires, so he is making up new reasons to delete things. Trollderella 16:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or, it could be a good-faith nomination based on an understood but controversial and uncodified notion of encylcopedic notability. I'm not happy with these terse nominations or the apparent mass nomination, but I don't see any reason to be assuming bad faith when it can be explained as a good-faith misunderstanding or disagreement of what is appropriate for deletion. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why he did it MiB, but mass nomination of seemingly random articles, with no explanation, except a coded reference to something that he must know is not in policy, and is best controversial, is bound to raise a certain amount of irritation. If he wanted to irritate less, he would explain his nominations, or nominate more carefully chosen articles. Trollderella 16:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You could, if you wanted to, create that article, and we could deal with it on it's merits. As you know, non-notable is irrelevant to deletion. Trollderella 19:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm... could you be a little more condescending? "As you know" not being notable means not being encyclopedic. And what are the phantom "merits" of this article that warrant its inclusion? -R. fiend 19:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So where, Trollderella, do you place the cutoff point for notability? I'd say a bus shelter for tram passengers is not notable. You are free to disagree, but that is my settled view. - Just zis Guy, you know? 20:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, where do you place the cut off point for how yellow the object is? I don't place a cut-off point for notability, because notability has nothing to do with deletion criteria. It may be your settled view, but it's not deletion policy. Trollderella 22:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Drown' is an interesting way to put it, I'm not sure how you'd ever even notice. Trollderella 02:19, 27 October 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. Nobody seems inclined to argue that this isn't a POV fork, and the debate is ongoing at Talk:Rajput. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu rajputs

[edit]

POV fork of Rajput (currently protected from vandalism) and History of Rajputs.

Simply more bad behavior by "Shivraj" (203.101.53.247 (talk · contribs)/203.101.51.191 (talk · contribs)/203.101.54.165 (talk · contribs)/203.101.54.143 (talk · contribs)/203.101.50.154 (talk · contribs)/203.101.54.195 (talk · contribs)/203.101.51.164 (talk · contribs)) who is bent on inserting anti-Muslim text into the Rajput article. — goethean ॐ 18:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cache

  • Wiki admins please see the discussion page on rajputs. Gothean and other muslims have been repeatedly asked to provide written evidence for there edits against hindu rajputs. Close to a week has gone by and they are refusing to give us bibliography of any books or written evidence. They have the opinion that unless there version of history is accepted by hindu rajputs it is POV. Evidence and good scholarship is not there forte. -Shivraj Singh
Reading some of the comments it appears that Shivraj is pushing a single point of view that multiple users contest, including Goethean, the founder of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. As it reads now, I don't think that the Rajput article or the Hindu rajputs is very good but that doesn't qualify it for AFD. Because it is a relatively unknown and extremely controversial topic, I do not think that it will garner many votes except for those involved with the debate. If and when the debate at Rajput is satisfactorally resolved then this article can be relisted again. --Reflex Reaction 23:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Man in Black: I am not sure if I have put my point across well. I have created the article from a multitude of books which have been written by eminent historians of yesteryears and modern times. Gothean himself and his friends have been reverting the edits WITHOUT providing a single piece of documented evidence to support there work. And he now admits that he has no citations to prove his and his buddies beliefs. I have cut and pasted what he wrote on User:Dmcdevit's page below. Some of the authors I referenced are:
James Tod: Annals and antiquities of ancient Rajasthan
Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan; or the Central and Western Rajput States... (Hardcover) by James Tod, William Crooke (Editor) Book Description Relates the history of the Central and Western Rajput states of India; edited by William Crooke. 3 volumes. classic on early Rajasthan (amazon.com) Product Hardcover Publisher: Trans-Atl (1994) Language: English ISBN: 8170691281
Prof Dashratha Sharma: Early Chauhan dynasties: A study of Chauhan political history, Chauhan political institutions, and life in the Chauhan dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D
Product Details Publisher: Motilal Banarsidass; 2d rev. ed edition (1975) Language: English ISBN: 0842606181
Dr. LS Rathore : The glory of ranthambore
Jodhpur university press, Jodhpur (India) First published in 1990
Richard D. Saran and Norman P. Ziegler: Mertiyo Rathors Of Merto, Rajasthan: Select Translations Bearing On The History Of A Rajput Family, 1462-1660
Select Translations Bearing on the History of a Rajput Family, 1462-1660 Translator Saran, Richard D. Annotations by Saran, Richard D. Hardcover Edition: Series#:51; Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia (Hardcover) 772 pages Publisher: University of Michigan Press ISBN / EAN: 0891480854

Shivraj Singh 01:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then, by all means, resolve the dispute at Rajput instead of creating a POV fork. The more I read into this, the more I see that no effort has been made to make this anything but a duplicate of an existing article, with a certain POV being advanced. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Resolving the dispute was my intention too on the rajput discussion page. I requested the "other side" to provide a list of books which they used to revert my edits. A week has gone by, they have been pretty vocal and active, but no evidence has been forthcoming. See the section "Talk Facts" on the rajput discussion page. What I wonder is how come no body is asking these guys to come up with supporting evidence? Shivraj Singh 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have some patience. In any case, making a POV fork isn't allowed. Resolve the disputes at Rajput; don't try to bypass the page protection by making a fork. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have been waiting patiently for one week now. I am happy to answer any questions that people have on my writings. But what perplexes me is that nobody is asking these muslims, who are reverting my edits to provide any citations. Does everyone here completely beleive them? If so why is it? -- Shivraj Singh 17:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reflex Reaction,

I have tried to discuss on the talk page because some muslim users were constantly reverting my edits on rajput page. Then I requested the page be protected and also asked these users to provide evidence for there edits. It has been close to a week and they have chosen to not provide any evidence. So what should be assumed in such a circumstance?

The books from which this article is formed are very welll researched books on rajput history written by eminent historians. No one , even on rajput discussion page has provided a single counter evidence to what is written by the following authors.

James Tod did more then 20 years of research when he was living in Rajasthan in 1800's and then published the momentous "Annals and Antiquities of ancient Rajasthan". This is the only book which covers in great detail the history of rajputs. Before him and since him such a comprehensive book has not been published.

Other books I cited were by Professor Dashratha Sharma who took into account quite a few stone writings of various chauhan kings throughout there dominion and also took into account numismatics and the history works written in native Indian languages by the authors of that era. e.g Prithvirajvijay, Hammir MahaKavya etc.

Third book is by an existing professor at Jodhpur university who spent a lot of time researching the Indian works on the life of Hammir and then published has work in English.

These authors are not known to westerners who any way tend to rely more on muslim historians who tend to be very biased towards there kings.

On the rajput discussion page I pointed out how biased muslim historians are even today. MJ Akbar who is a very educated man and a journalist from India published a book recently called "shades of swords" in which he lists the wars of muslim kings but completely glosses over the severe defeats Ghori suffered in Gujarat in 1178 at Kayadara and later at Taraori in Haryana in 1191. And there are many more omissions.

Reason we have so much acrimony because muslims have been fed one version of the history by there historians in which there kings are shown as superhumans and rajput kings were shown as pushovers. Reality is far too different as many historians have pointed out. I presented a complete bibliography which they have managed to delete also. (I am in the process of collecting the publishers etc for these books in the bibliography. I am travelling and am away from my library but I will gather all the info by COB friday).


-Shivraj Singh

PS: User Goethean is an extremely biased hindu hater. Here is an example:

Gothean has been selectively removing hindu responses from the wiki talkpage on rajputs. He is calling himself a moderator but I let the post from raja(who happens to be a muslim), where he talks about insecurity of faith, sit there on the talk page for more then 24 hours. Goethean was nowhere to be found. Then someone called me a moron and Goethean was still on snooze. Finally I responded to raja and then Gothean woke up instantaneously and started deleting stuff. When I ask him to explain this duplicity in behavior he remains silent. See the difff below. Raja is a muslim user who made an assertion on insecurity of faith and then I responded.

  1. cur) (last) 18:55, 26 October 2005 203.101.51.164 (→Talk facts)
  2. (cur) (last) 17:56, 26 October 2005 Goethean (→Hindu Rajputs)
Your arguments would be more respected if you signed in as a user, learned wiki formatting and stopped using ad hominem attacks and perhaps sockpuppets. I do not agree with everything that User:Goethean has done, but he is familiar with the rules and conventions of wikipedia, even though it he may have broken some of those rules. From reading the comments you should be more familiar with Wikiquette. If you would like to discuss further contact me at my user page and I would be glad to help you. --Reflex Reaction 20:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken Reflex_Reaction. I have created an account. As I have repeatedly stated we should ask Goethean and his friends to provide us documentary evidence for there edits. Since I have already requested them multiple times for this info maybe somebody else asking might have better cooperation from them. The response I have gotten from a user on the other side of this discussion is "Again why should we? Who cares?". I suggested to him this is not an answer and he has been vocal about other things but no citations. Please see rajput discussion section "Talk facts". -- Shivraj Singh 01:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean admits he and his buddies have no evidence

[edit]

Please look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit and the heading Rajput. It is the 20th heading.

Hi there. I believe that it was you who protected the Rajput article. In the pursuit of resolution of the dispute, I would like to add some text to the article. Unfortunately, it has not been approved by all parties, but nonetheless, here it is:

Some see the Rajput varna as including followers of all four major religions of the sub-continent: Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism. Others dispute the claim that non-Hindus can be Rajputs, seeing the Rajput identity as comprised primarily of participation in Hindu religious rites and the Hindu caste system rather than one of ethnic heritage.

This would replace the last sentence of the "Definition" section. Unfortunately, at this point, we don't have citations to back up the attributions. Thanks! — goethean ॐ 18:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

-Shivraj

Rajputana is not my area of expertise, but I know how to find info. I searched my Questia account for recent books on Rajputs and came up with three, with are listed on the talk page for Rajput. There were many more. Shivraj is using four books, one of which is an old primary source, two of which are local Indian productions (and possibly Hindutva-slanted), and one reputable academic text of limited scope. I know enough about India, and communal violence in India, to know that Shivraj is pushing an extreme Hindu POV. What I've skimmed of the books I found on Questia suggests that Goethean and the other editors are correct in seeing the question in shades of grey, rather than Shivraj's simplistic black-and-white narrative. Identity is not a simple matter, and especially so in India. Please don't let this POV fork stand. Zora 07:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zora. Richard Saran is from the west so his work is reputable and these other professors are "possibly hindutva slanted"? Have you read these books to arrive at this conclusion or is it a prejudice? I have personally communicated with Richard Saran a few times and he has sent me good amount of material from his personal collection which helped me trace my genealogy back to Rao Sheoji of Marwar. Let us see how Richard did his research (He told me this when I spoke to him). He went to India and translated marwari/dingal manuscripts of rathore kings in a particular time window. Then he got the genealogies of various rajput clans from Manohar Singh Ranawat of Sitamau, who is a direct descendant of Maharana Pratap, and is also a protege of Raghubir Singh the ruler of Sitamau. Raghubir Singh is an eminent historian and wrote the life of Durgadas Rathore which is present in my bibliography. It took Richard and Norman couple of decades to bring there work out i.e painstaking research over a very long period of time.
Prof. Dashratha Sharma and Dr LS Rathore researched works like HammirMahaKavya, Prithiviraj Vijaya, PrithvirajRaso and various stone inscriptions in rajasthan and numismatic evidence and after many dedicated years of research published there respective works. To trivialize them as "hindutva.." is bad scholarship.
I have not mentioned just four books. Please see the Reference section of this page.
You claim you know India and communal violence there. Then you use sweeping generalizations of shades of grey and black and white. I want you to be very precise and point out what is anti muslim or hindutva POV in my post on this page.
What is astonishing on this wiki is I have provided a complete bibliography from which I formed this article and yet I am the one who is being accused of pushing POV, being a hindutva wadi and anti muslim. When these muslims reverted my edits and I asked them for supporting citations they refuse to provide even a single piece of documented evidence and yet they are not considered POV pushing, or just clueless about rajput history. I asked them 5 precise questions on the rajput talk page and I asked them to provide citations so that we can engage in a logical discussion but I received a blank and nobody is bothered here ? What am I missing? -- Shivraj Singh 17:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with Hindutva.

In the same light, if one were to look at history, with the statement of "pronounced anti-Muslim agenda" then the enitire History of the Jewish people during the holocaust of Worl war 2 can be viewed as a "Pronounced Anti-german, anti-european, anti-christian agenda". To deny what has happened will only further divide and embitter communities.

In this discussion, Shivraj Singh is citing references and making attempts for individuals on this site to see the reality of the situation and the claims being made without foundation. Shivraj is not working with very few books, since a study in any ASouth Asian Studies department will provide you with a huge list of books that narrate the atrocities committed in the subcontinent by the Islamic invasion. Its not about being anti-Islamic, its just about what happened as recorded by Islamic historians who happened to be quite amazing in their prcise accounts of what happened and how they crushed and destroyed the inhabitants of India.

Irfan Husain, a Muslim and a freelance columnist from Pakistan has observed:

”While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan.

The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried.

Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster. Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful.

These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage. When these warriors settled in India, they ruled as absolute despots over a cowed Hindu populace. For generations, their descendants took their martial superiority over their subjects for granted. "... And a substantial number of Pakistani Muslims are secretly convinced that they are inherently superior to the Hindus. One irony, of course, is that contrary to their wishful thinking, the vast majority of Muslims in the subcontinent have more Hindu blood in their veins than there is Arab, Afghan, Turkish or Persian blood. Many of the invaders took Hindu wives and concubines."

Reference: Demons from the past - By Ifran Husain - dailytimes.com.pk

Thus from here you can see that this is not about being Anti-Islamic, however denying what has happened, or simply denying th holocaust of the subcontinent will not win people's minds in favour of Islam, instead it will further create an feeling of animosity since in this discussion alone their has been a lot of denial of the truth.

Furthermore, Rajput is a strata of the hierarchial system of the Hindus, and for a Muslim to claim to be part of the Hindu Hierarchy clearly violates the beliefs and tenents of Islam, however here we find the convinience of claiming what one wishes to from a Pagan/Kafur faith and yet claiming to be a Muslim, there is an oxymoron.

VS Naipaul, we all know is a Noble Laureate and even he can see what Shivraj Singh is trying to state:

Sir Vidiadhar S. Naipaul (1932 - ) Nobel laureate, He is the author of several books including Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples, Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey, and India: A Wounded Civilization. He has said: "India was wrecked and looted, not once but repeatedly by invaders with strong religious ideas, with a hatred of the religion of the people they were conquering. People read these accounts but they do not imaginatively understand the effects of conquest by an iconoclastic religion."

"India became the great land for Muslim adventurers and the peasantry bore this on their back, they were enslaved quite literally. It just went on like this from the 11th century onwards."

Vidiadhar Naipaul summed up the situation well. He said, "In art and history books, people write of the Muslims "arriving" in India as though they came on a tourist bus and went away again. The Muslim view of their conquest is a truer one. They speak of the triumph of faith, the destruction of idols and temples, the loot, the casting away of locals as slaves." Reference: Economic Times - http://www.economictimes.com/today/30poli04.htm

And even Islamic texts state what happened:

The temple of Somnath, which is not very far from Dwaraka, is dedicated to Lord Siva as Nagnath or Nageshwar Mahadev, and enshrines one of the twelve ‘Jyotirlingas’ which according to the Puranas manifested themselves as columns of light in different parts of the country. The magnificent temple that stands there now is a replica of the original temple. The 13th century Arab source refers to the glories of the temple thus: "Somnath - a celebrated city of India situated on the shore of the sea is washed by its waves. Among the wonders of that place was the temple in which was placed the idol called Somnat. This idol was in the middle of the temple, without anything to support it from below or to suspend it from above. It was held in the highest honour among the Hindus, and whoever beheld it floating in the air was struck with amazement..."

Reference: Sultan Alau’d-Din Khalji (1296-1316), in Tarikh-I-Firuz Shahi

And another article for you by another muslim Rizwan Salim:

" It is clear that India at the time when Muslim invaders turned towards it (8 to 11th century) was the earth's richest region for its wealth in precious and semi-precious stones, gold and silver, religion and culture, and its fine arts and letters. Tenth century Hindustan was also too far advanced than its contemporaries in the East and the West for its achievements in the realms of speculative philosophy and scientific theorizing, mathematics and knowledge of nature's workings. Hindus of the early medieval period were unquestionably superior in more things than the Chinese, the Persians (including the Sassanians), the Romans and the Byzantines of the immediate proceeding centuries. The followers of Siva and Vishnu on this subcontinent had created for themselves a society more mentally evolved-joyous and prosperous too-than had been realized by the Jews, Christians, and Muslim monotheists of the time. Medieval India, until the Islamic invaders destroyed it, was history's most richly imaginative culture and one of the five most advanced civilizations of all times.

Look at the Hindu art that Muslim iconoclasts severely damaged or destroyed. Ancient Hindu sculpture is vigorous and sensual in the highest degree-more fascinating than human figural art created anywhere else on earth. (Only statues created by classical Greek artists are in the same class as Hindu temple sculpture). Ancient Hindu temple architecture is the most awe-inspiring, ornate and spell-binding architectural style found anywhere in the world. (The Gothic art of cathedrals in France is the only other religious architecture that is comparable with the intricate architecture of Hindu temples). No artist of any historical civilization have ever revealed the same genius as ancient Hindustan's artists and artisans.

Their minds filled with venom against the idol-worshippers of Hindustan, the Muslims destroyed a large number of ancient Hindu temples. This is a historical fact, mentioned by Muslim chroniclers and others of the time. A number of temples were merely damaged and remained standing. But a large number - not hundreds but many thousands - of the ancient temples were broken into shreds of cracked stone. In the ancient cities of Varanasi and Mathura, Ujjain and Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi and Dwarka, not one temple survives whole and intact from the ancient times.

It is easy to conclude that virtually every Hindu temple built in the ancient times is a perfect work of art. The evidence of the ferocity with which the Muslim invaders must have struck at the sculptures of gods and goddesses, demons and apsaras, kings and queens, dancers and musicians is frightful. At so many ancient temples of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, for example, shattered portions of stone images still lie scattered in the temple courtyards. Considering the fury used on the idols and sculptures, the stone-breaking axe must have been applied to thousands upon thousands of images of hypnotic beauty.

Giving proof of the resentment that men belonging to an inferior civilization feel upon encountering a superior civilization of individuals with a more refined culture, Islamic invaders from Arabia and western Asia broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan. So morally degenerate were the Muslim Sultans that, rather than attract Hindu "infidels" to Islam through force of personal example and exhortation, they just built a number of mosques at the sites of torn down temples-and foolishly pretended they had triumphed over the minds and culture of the Hindus. "

" I have seen stones and columns of Hindu temples incorporated into the architecture of several mosques, including the Jama Masjid and Ahmed Shah Masjid in Ahmedabad; the mosque in the Uparkot fort of Junagadh (Gujarat) and in Vidisha (near Bhopal); the Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra right next to the famous dargah in Ajmer-and the currently controversial Bhojshala "mosque" in Dhar (near Indore).

Hindu culture was at its imaginative best and vigorously creative when the severely-allergic-to-images Muslims entered Hindustan. Islamic invaders did not just destroy countless temples and constructions but also suppressed cultural and religious practices; damaged the pristine vigor of Hindu religion, prevented the intensification of Hindu culture, debilitating it permanently, stopped the development of Hindu arts ended the creative impulse in all realms of thought and action, damaged the people's cultural pride, disrupted the transmission of values and wisdom, cultural practices and tradition from one generation to the next; destroyed the proper historical evolution of Hindu kingdoms and society, affected severely the acquisition of knowledge, research and reflection and violated the moral basis of Hindu society. The Hindus suffered immense psychic damage. The Muslims also plundered the wealth of the Hindu kingdoms, impoverished the Hindu populace, and destroyed the prosperity of Hindustan."

" Gaze in wonder at the Kailas Mandir in the Ellora caves and remember that it is carved out of a solid stone hill, an effort that (inscriptions say) took nearly 200 years. This is art as devotion. The temple built by the Rashtrakuta kings (who also built the colossal sculpture in the Elenhanta caves off Mumbai harbour) gives proof of the ancient Hindus' religious fervor.

The descendants of those who built the magnificent temples of Bhojpur and Thanjavur, Konark and Kailas, invented mathematics and brain surgery, created mindbody disciplines (yoga) of astonishing power, and built mighty empires would almost certainly have attained technological superiority over Europe.

It is not just for "political reasons" that Hindus want to build grand temples at the sites of the (wrecked) Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, and the Mathura idgah. The efforts of religion-intoxicated and politically active Hindus to rebuild the Ram Mandir, the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir, and the Krishna Mandir are just three episodes m a one-thousand year long Hindu struggle to reclaim their culture and religion from alien invaders.

The demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992 was just one episode in the millennial struggle of the Hindus to repossess their religion-centered culture and nation. Meanwhile, hundreds of ancient Hindu temples forsaken all over Hindustan await the reawakening of Hindu cultural pride to be repaired or rebuilt and restored to their original, ancient glory.

Reference: What the invaders really did - By Rizwan Salim - hindustantimes.com - December 28, 1997

Thus it is not about anti-Islam, not at all, many muslims know what has happened and they feel bad, thus it brings about a feeling of forgiveness and a chance for understanding, however, it seems, that here it is a complete Anti-Hindu situation with an attempt to subvert and distort the truth. I have yet to see one of my muslim colleagues claim I was anti-Islamic simly because I spoke about the truth and historucal fact.

I hope I have been of some assistance.

Dr. Chauhan Gorkhali 10:13, 27 October 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.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopesfall/old

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. – Alphax τεχ 07:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopesfall

[edit]

Barely breaks 20,000 Google hits, website's Alexa rating did not break the two million mark. Delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was going to say clean it up and keep it, since they've got discography, etc, but some wiseass decided to delete the other comments left here (check the history) in regards to the article and replace it with "leave it up". Charming. Does that warrant a deletion? Devotchka 00:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! It's just been a bad day for AFDSPAM. Trollderella 22:40, 26 October 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. 23 keep votes and 9 delete votes (discounting the one added by a sock puppet), which is a borderline keep consensus. — JIP | Talk 08:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Mann Elementary School (Oak Park, Illinois)

[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace Mann Elementary School (Oak Park, Illinois) (2nd nomination) for moved discussion of 2nd nom. --Rob 04:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NN, D. ComCat 00:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a slightly expanded version of a previously AfD'd and deleted article - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace Mann Elementary School. They have at least learned to leave out the bit about melting snowpeople. -- RHaworth 09:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have now restored and merged Horace Mann Elementary School so that anyone can judge how different the new version is. -- RHaworth 10:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a far cry from "many parents prefer it"--Nicodemus75 10:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's what's Education and Education in the United States is for. Articles on individual schools don't help us cover education any better. - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how this school is important (ie, in the context of the many tens of thousands of schools that exist).Dxco 10:33, 26 October 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. — ceejayoz talk 23:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hummer Card

[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:26, 26 October 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 Per CSD G4 Karmafist 03:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Explanation on Talk Page[reply]

Jagism

[edit]

This was previously discussed and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagism. I don't think the current text is "Substantially identical" so I didn't tag it for a speedy delete under WP:CSD G4 (which was my first inclination). Howver, few if any of the problems which led to it being deleted, and very recently at that, have been fixed. Delete and protect the deleted page to prevent future recreations. DES (talk) 00:32, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 03:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff M. Dym

[edit]

Appears to be a hoax. says who???Yahoo cannot find a "Radiological Imaging Center" in Los Angeles, Google cannot find a publisher called "Rays Press", and although there is a Dr. Jeffrey M. Dym working in radiology, he lives in Maryland. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. According to this article, he works both in proctology and in the penile field. Plus, he has the ability to take X-Rays of his heart. I have a feeling that it's fake. PersonDude 23:32, 26 October 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 Deleted by Jni as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Ramer

[edit]

Vanity Page 24.127.127.190 08:03, 26 October 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 Out of 7 opinions, 5 were for delete, 2 for keep. This is more than about 2/3s consensus to delete, hence delete. HappyCamper 03:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewdriver

[edit]

Was at one stage tagged as speedy but does not meet the criteria. However, also does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC, so delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:10, 26 October 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.


you are all a bunch of idiots, Jewdriver was a parody band from Oakland, California...you people are why no one trusts the bullshit they read on wikipedia...fucking self-proclaimed experts don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. -Ian Stuartstein

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 HappyCamper 03:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Garibaldi

[edit]

Non-notable person. Being sacked from Big Brother in Mexico before the premiere, isn't enought to warrant an article in my opinion. Bjelleklang - talk 21:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Delete per nom. - and as far as I'm concerned the same applies to every article about every contestant in every "reality" TV show in every country on the planet. - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:42, 26 October 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 KEEP (withdrawn by nominator). — ceejayoz talk 23:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keele ward

[edit]

I'm not completely sure about this one, is this guy notable enough? I'm an idiot never mind Withdraw nom. (Relax!)Gator1 19:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this guy notable enough??!! This is about a political ward, not a person! Grunners 19:08, 26 October 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keyfile

[edit]

This article appears to have been created solely for the purpose of advertising a product and does not contain any content that would be useful outside of that context. Thatdog 08:33, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong Il Fan Club

[edit]

Group made up of a bunch of kids in North Dakota, containing one of the officers' email address. I'm tempted to leave it up so that email-harvesting spambots collect it, but I must resist. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:57, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kotava

[edit]

We need good NPOV articles about notable conlangs. This is a POV article about a non-notable conlang. DenisMoskowitz 14:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DenisMoskowitz 15:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a google search returns only 201 entries, of which over 5 of the top 20 are Wikipedia sites, non-notable conlang --Reflex Reaction 19:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix to NPOV. Who are you do say a language even conlang is insignificant to be on WP? What's the scale to judge with? I'm not an adept of any conlang, but an article about this one doesn't hurt WP as long as it's NPOV ---moyogo 06:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. It's not NPOV, it seems to be a clumsily translated advertisement. If you can fix that, please go ahead.
    • 2. As an editor, I have as much right to say something is insignificant as anyone else.
    • 3. IMHO, Wikipedia doesn't need to contain every pet project known to a circle of friends (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). There are certainly notable conlangs (those known by large numbers of people, those that influence other conlangs, those that appear in mass media, etc.) but with the evidence available to me, this doesn't appear to be one. DenisMoskowitz 13:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Honestly, I've been thinking this over for quite a while. It was me who put the {{NPOV}}-tag in the first place, then asked some questions on Talk:Kotava and brought up the topic on Talk:Constructed language#Kotava. The language seems to have a small community of users indeed, but consensus says that that alone does not make a conlang notable enough for inclusion. The number of Google hits, on the other hand, speaks out firmly against inclusion. Unfortunately, I didn't get any reply to my remarks about the POV character of the article, nor to my questions about what else would make the language notable. I would probably have abstained if the writer of the article had at least taken the effort to remove the propagandistic elements, but its current contents, in combination with a lack of convincing arguments regarding notability, make it pretty impossible for me to vote otherwise than delete. --IJzeren Jan 10:14, 31 October 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 HappyCamper 02:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lcirc

[edit]

Non-notable IRC network. At 250 users, it doesn't even merit a footnote. -- Captain Disdain 23:39, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LEFPro

[edit]

nn company Gator1 19:11, 26 October 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Candybar, That Kind of White Sunset, Liquid Candybar (album)

[edit]

Delete. Unsigned band that apparently has recorded two albums on their own (the sencond one recorded in their basement, I believe. Not meeting WP:music. And unlike Prussian Blue, these guys do not appear to be neo-nazis that got a segment on ABC news. —Gaff ταλκ 02:59, 26 October 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 --JAranda | watz sup 01:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of individuals executed in New York

[edit]

Small list with no meaning to it. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 02:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - if it's a disgrace, which I'm not convinced it is, then expand it! Trollderella 22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I have to do a bunch of research on a topic I have no real interest in because someone can't be bothered to write their own crappy article? You're the one who wants to keep article. You make it halfway worthwhile. I'm sick of people who decide to write "articles" but can't even do the most minimal job of making it anything but a piece of shit. -R. fiend 01:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the expansion. Thank you, Evil Monkey, for doing what no one else could be bothered to do, in making a halfway decent article here. -R. fiend 15:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - please feel free to add some more - it's just not a reason to delete it. Trollderella 01:21, 27 October 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 - applies to this list, and all related subpages listed here. Please request an undeletion if there is a desire to edit this material in the future. HappyCamper 02:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of plagiarism songs

[edit]

surely it cannot be a good idea to have a potentially libellous page of essentially unsourced allegations? Nunh-huh 06:06, 26 October 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 after discounting anonips showing up for the first time in order to vote. As suggested, categories would be a good way to replace it. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons episodes by theme

[edit]

Delete because

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

This list is pure fancruft (yes, I know some people here do not like the term but this is the epitome of it) and is of no encyclopedic value whatsoever - I doubt categorizing Simpsons episodes by theme serves any encyclopedic purpose.

There are hundreds of fansites out there who are more suitable for this topic than Wikipedia.

zerofoks 19:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I like the Simpsons, but sometimes you can go too far. Too much Simpson cruft on here anyway. --MacRusgail 20:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This article is an invaluable source of information for anybody trying to locate a Simpsons episode with a particular theme. It is very detailed and accurate as well as being a list that's unique to the web, as far as I know. -- Kaizersoze 20:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC) (creator of article)[reply]
Ammendment - I also believe that with the 350+ individual articles on Simpsons episodes, there should be an article categorizing them, and this seems like the best way. The only other option I see would be to create categories for every theme ("Homer themed Simpsons episodes" category, "Marge themed Simpsons episodes" category, "Vacation themed Simpsons episodes" category, etc.) - Kaizersoze 20:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing discussion about whether all lists of TV series are worthy/relevant enough to be included in Wikipedia at the moment, this might interest you: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes --zerofoks 20:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think in all due fairness to the AfD etiquette it should be stated that you are the creator of the article in question. --zerofoks 20:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Heh. If you're the creator, Kaizersoze, nice job, but why not just put it on a fansite or something? You're right that it's unique to the web, but Wikipedia is not a haven for rogue sites. Just submit it to SNPP or something. Devotchka 20:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (originallyWeak Keep) - This is a great list but would be more suited to a fansite, not Wikipedia. On the other hand, if it can't be found anywhere else, I'm not sure we should delete it yet. Devotchka 20:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -I wouldn't have nominated if I thought it could be expanded to something useful. Besides, letting it stay justifies other articles of the same kin to have their place here (List of StarTrek episodes by theme? List of Seinfeld episodes by theme?) --zerofoks 20:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment - As for other places where this could be listed, there are Simpsons Wikis out there for this. My point was that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, as a collection of knowledge, not a pure data bin. --zerofoks 20:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be saved pretty easily to one of the many wikis for the Simpsons. The formatting isn't anything difficult to migrate. If anyone is interested in this thing, I'd suggest to make copies of this article elsewhere online, no matter whether the vote goes delete or keep. --zerofoks 00:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wouldn't object to deleting the Simpsons episode articles, as well. --Carnildo 00:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Just zis Guy, you know?, too many themes. feydey 00:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Seriously. This is one of the interesting pages that makes Wikipedia such a fun place to visit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.208.139 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, add it to one of the indie SimpsonsWikis. Andrew Levine 01:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Most people voting for 'Delete' on this page are not huge Simpsons fans. Take 'Carnildo' who posted 'I wouldn't object to deleting the Simpsons episode articles, as well'. Said opinions should be disregarded, as they are from sources whom wouldn't appreciate any article of 'The Simpsons'. The fact is, this article is an organised, and very useful summary of Simpsons episodes which is user friendly, and is great for reference, which is what Wikipedia is all about. 195.93.21.39 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Most people voting for 'Delete' on this page are not huge Simpsons fans"? I'm a card-carrying member in good standing of alt.nerd.obsessive, but I voted for deletion because this Wikipedia is not the place for an arbitrary taxonomy of Simpsons episodes. Andrew Levine 17:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As others have said, this article is an invaluable source of information. Scott.
  • Comment: Because the two (!) users above have not done this, I want to state that the Afd etiquette states: Sign any recommendation or comment you add, by adding this at the end: ~~~~. Also, my argument was about Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia, a collection of knowledge, not any fan data anybody could possibly think of. I am a big Simspons fan myself (earlier seasons), but that does not change the validity of the one major WP:WWINs I listed in my initial post: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There has got to be a reasonable border between what is general useful and interesting knowledge and simply information for diehard fans - otherwise Wikipedia will welcome all data bins one that can possibly be come up with. --zerofoks 14:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Keep this. I've done articles before on my site but this is ingenious

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.123.54 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment: The information IS useful. At 350+ episodes, your average user wouldn't know where to BEGIN to search for a specific episode. With thematic divide, they can easily search for a particular episode via the sub-categories. It saves a lot of time for any user, and it is the type of thing many internet users would expect they could use Wikipedia for. Because it makes life much easier. Wikipedia is all about organised information, and this is exactly what this page is. Such a huge topic as 'The Simpsons' really does require this level of organisation, otherwise any other information becomes much less useful. 195.93.21.39 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Sure it is useful - somehow. Any type of information can be useful to someone (I doubt this article is useful to the average user, though). But is this encyclopedic? It has been pointed out that there are other, better places for this type of fan-info on the web. Sorting out rather unencyclopedic or very specific types of data to other wikimedia projects or other wiki communities has been a generally accepted and successful policy on Wikipedia so far. Letting this article stay will only help to allow other types of extreme "fancruft" to enter Wikipedia - and there is no reason that would detain anyone from saving this article to a more appropriate place on the web. But I am repeating myself....--zerofoks 18:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: extremely informative, what with all the different themes in the show. I've never seen a list like this on any fansites, yet it is helpful. Squidward2602 09:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep my knee-jerk reaction was delete, but I looked at the list and it was good. Its actually interesting and informative, and maintainable. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 20:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a Simpsons fan, but this is getting ridiculous. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am not a Simpson fan, however this list is not easy to find. At least this page was useful for me. -- mymus 02:12, 31 October 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.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of companies

[edit]

Nominating all Lists of companies type articles (collected in Lists of companies) with named exceptions and others that may be proposed. Virtually all these violate WP:NOT on potentially a number of grounds, eg: not ... a repository of links point 2: "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." That they do so can be seen by the fact that almost all can be, and indeed many have been, supplemented or replaced by categories. Some, however, such as List of commercial pairs, seem just pointless. By the way, I know this may annoy people who've worked on those lists, and may have been discussed before and I missed it, in which case, sorry in advance.

Just to clarify that this is a nomination for a class of articles, except where there are specific reasons to make an exception. I attached the AfD to the Lists of companies article because it surveys that class. I've also added notices in a couple of places - but not on every list that falls in this class. Further to clarify that this is not a nomination for immediate deletion, but for conversion to categories/merger with company articles. Rd232 talk 13:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Named exceptions:
Some examples of lists proposed for deletion (collected in Lists of companies) | categories they duplicate or overlap with


Delete. Any notable companies will have Wiki articles, and these can be collected via Categories. Lists are redundant and vulnerable to cruft. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are still five FTSE 100 Index companies without articles so there must be huge numbers of major companies without artilces outside the English speaking world. Bhoeble 22:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for creating stubs, or possibly a list of companies that should have articles but don't (Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles), not to have these lists in general. Rd232 talk 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally it occurs to me I didn't make it clear that I would expect a Delete result to be implemented over a period of time, as companies are removed from lists when it is confirmed they are in appropriate categories. No loss of information is intended, only restructuring. Rd232 talk 22:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To see which important companies remain to have an entry written on them, you can look at the entry on a stock market index, which will list its constituents. DocendoDiscimus 22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather have red links in wikipedia to look at. Much easier, and I only need one web browser open. CalJW 01:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If red links to identify missing articles are the aim then a list aimed specifically at that purpose will achieve it much better. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's stick with categories -- much, much easier to maintain. - Afelton 17:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Lists do not replace categories as they cannot have links. All the list can be improved with further information in the long run. As it is the country lists provide an overall alphabetical list, which the categories do not as they have been partially subdivided by sector. In any case the nomination should be void as the nominator doesn't seem to have tagged the articles. Bhoeble 21:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Lists do not replace categories as they cannot have links." - can you clarify that please.
I presume (s)he meant red links. CalJW 01:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which means missing company articles, which brings me back to "List of missing company articles".
" All the lists can be improved with further information in the long run." - how? any detailed information on companies should go into company articles
The same as any other model list. They could contain a few basic details like sector and turnover so people can decide if they want to look at the article. I'm confident that these sorts of quality enhancements will become more common as wikipedia matures. CalJW 01:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which will be even harder to maintain, especially as the lists continue to expand to cover the ever-increasing number of company articles. This goes in the direction of a database on companies, which a simple central, manually-maintained list is extraordinarily bad for. If we created lists by bot from company articles my objections to lists would disappear. They could exract data from templates to make lists with more data than just company names. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"country lists provide an overall alphabetical list, which the categories do not as they have been partially subdivided by sector." - if we want an overall list (I'm not sure why we do - seems vaguely WP:NOTish) we can do that by listing companies in the top country category as well as subcategories, which would be much more maintainable.
That would be against the general policy on catgorisation, and there would be no way to ensure that it was done consistently and it would make a mess of things by pushing some of the subcategories off of the first page where there were more than 200 articles. CalJW 01:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True. So perhaps have a Lists subcategory specifically to create alphabetised lists without conflicting with standard categorisation. Consistency of application is surely as bad or worse with categories as with lists. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"In any case the nomination should be void as the nominator doesn't seem to have tagged the articles." - are you really suggesting that in order to debate the principle we need to tag every instance (of which there are dozens)? Rd232 talk 22:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the other user, but I sometimes tag dozens of categories on Categories for deletion. If you want to wipe out a vast amount of other users' work, you owe them the courtesy of inviting them to participate in the debate. CalJW 01:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this AfD at Wikipedia talk:Lists and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics. I guess I didn't think the proposal was likely enough to succeed to go through tagging all the individual lists. Rd232 talk 07:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we created lists by bot, they would be a good deal less complete. And it isn't going to happen in the forseeable future. CalJW 19:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - provided it is done such that no information is lost. Categories are much more flexible. - DocendoDiscimus 22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be done without losing information. Do you want them deleted, with information lost, or do you want them kept? Those are the options. CalJW 01:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"It cannot be done without losing information." - my premise was that only lists whose content can be transferred to company articles should be deleted, once that has been done. Rd232 talk 07:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to vote, but despite that big paragraph up there, I'm really confused as to what I am actually voting on. Can this somehow be reformatted and/or name particular articles instead of saying "all of this type"? If I don't know what the names of all the articles up for deletion are, how can I know whether they are of any use or not? --Jacqui ★ 23:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep I have tried to do some research, and I can't really see why these lists need to go. Then again, I still don't think I completely understand your arguments, at least partially due do the confusing format of this AfD. --Jacqui ★ 14:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an obvious case for categories, not lists. MCB 23:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Must major subject areas use both. This subject area should for the usual reasons. CalJW 01:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. BlankVerse ∅ 23:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, categories cannot provide structure or be annotated, in particular they cannot include alternate or old names for a single company. Users should not have to guess the contents of articles. Also this AFD is invalid because the pages in question have not been tagged and we can't even see them. Kappa 01:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternate or old names should be redirects, and mentioned in company articles, not buried on lists somewhere. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, so people who only know the "wrong" name can find another encyclopedia. Kappa
    WTF? If you were a newbie I'd assume you didn't know what a redirect was. As it is, I've no idea what you're on about. Rd232 talk 11:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you familiar with the concept of an index? Kappa 14:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Indexes make sense in many offline paper contexts, but not in Wikipedia. If/when electronic books replace paper ones, they won't need indexes either. I refer the honourable gentleman again to WP:NOT "mirror or a repository of links" point 2. Rd232 talk 14:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Um if we don't need indexes, we don't need categories either. Kappa 15:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories aid in finding similar objects, if that's what people want. They're unobtrusive at the bottom of pages, and are more wiki because more decentralised. People working on company articles are for more likely to add it to appropriate categories than to update a list - not least because it doesn't require editing a separate page. Categories of this type are simply a more maintainable version of lists. Rd232 talk 18:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories are not wiki. They are easy to add to, but they are extremely difficult to reorganize, often requiring bots. They are an inferior version of lists, because they cannot include alternate names for the same thing, and cannot describe or disambiguate what the link target is. Kappa 03:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why have these types of category? I'd prefer deleting those to having a schizophrenic system. Ah forget it, the categories aren't going anywhere and neither are the lists. Why not at least have bots collect missing cat entries (maybe in separate file to avoid collision and mess, eg List/category but not list. Rd232 talk 07:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted at the very top, Lists of companies surveys the class. If you want to look at instances of the class, go there. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had the second most edits in September because of the amount of categorisation work I did, but I had no intention of superseding lists. CalJW 01:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your intention in September isn't an argument. Your basis for that intention is. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have made a good deal of effort to explain that elsewhere, but you have brushed it all aside. I think the fact that being a proponent of categories in no way biases me against lists is relevant. I understand that the way wikipedia uses multiple organisation systems, some of which are preferred by some people, some by others, is one of its great strengths. You seem not to, and to want to wipe out the system which is not your personal favourite. CalJW 19:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have much use for either. But yes, it's clear that this schizophrenia is a result of some editors preferring lists and others categories. But I don't think having both doing the same thing half as well as picking one system and sticking with it helps readers. Rd232 talk 07:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is it really legit to put a whole series of articles up for deletion without adding AfD templates to the articles listed for deletion? I don't think this a valid listing. Guettarda 02:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly enough people think this for it to be taken seriously - individual probably couldn't be deleted without individual AfDs. But if I'd picked an individual list as a test case (a) it would be an arbitrary choice (b)less people might have participated (c) it would risk confusing specifics with the general principle (d) if the decision to convert to categories were made, it might have been less effective as policy. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what would the outcome of a "Delete" vote be? Re-listing each individual article? And would a "Keep" vote in any way preclude listing inividual articles? Guettarda 12:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would expect it to be a strong precedent, no more, no less. If the result were Delete, I would suggest making a template to attach to each list explaining the conversion is happening and what it involves and that when done the article will be deleted. (Conversion being the gradual removal of links from the list as it is confirmed that the article is in the appropriate category.) If anybody felt that a particular list should be an exception (beyond those already identified and possibly additional ones still to be agreed), they could create an individual AfD to try and confirm consensus to that effect. (A note on that should be in the template.) Conversion would take some time so there would be plenty of opportunity for challenging individual cases. Rd232 talk 13:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, I just found out about this vote. I must say Wikipedia isn't even quite as widespread as it could be. I feel its just too soon to write off this whole area as being bad. my sentiments would be keep it, give it more time. Areas that are growing and contributing something useful- can stay. Things that are going nowhere can be pruned/removed. As more persons come on board to Wikipedia, in time they'll contribute more knowledge on these companies. I have no problem with the proposal of certain bad articles up for delete or stub criteria, esp. if a company article looks totally like nothing more then an advertisement, but I think more companies will be added in the future. My findings are everything that should- be on Wikipedia probably wont be there overnight. CaribDigita 02:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I misreading you? It sounds like you think I'm suggesting we delete company articles, or company lists before the information is available elsewhere, neither fo which is the case. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep All. This is a silly, invalid nomination. You want an article deleted, you nominate IT. Don't come here, asking for permission to wade through Wikipedia willy-nilly, deleting various lists that we won't have a full debate on because you don't feel like nominating them individually so we can review them individually. Unfocused 03:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I never intended to do any wading myself, I just wanted a debate. Which we are having without the need for me to waste time tagging and untagging articles for which exactly the same arguments apply. If Delete, I would (have) expect(ed) others to implement the conversion, and there could always be additional AfDs on specific lists if there was disagreement. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lists can sort articles in other ways than just alphabetically. They can contain redlinks to articles which should exist but don't. In other words: Categories don't replace lists. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    They can but most of these don't; I suggested keeping List of companies by revenue, which does. I also suggested List of missing company articles, and there are many variations on that more specific purpose which would be better than these generic lists. These lists can be replaced by categories. Rd232 talk 11:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If "they can but [they] don't," then this is an argument for cleanup, not an AfD debate (or even a whole bunch hopelessly snarled together). Let's make the lists more useful instead of killing them off; you yourself said it was possible. --Jacqui ★ 14:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC
    As more companies are added, companies merge, etc, these lists have to be updated. Typically (or should I say occasionally), this is done by the person who adds or changes an entry (pick a continental European country and look at the editing history of the list..). The information tends to come from the entries/categories, and is then added to the list (not the other way round). In other words, the lists are a (weak) mirror of the categories. The clean up you suggest will be futile - once all the information is added, it is out of date. DocendoDiscimus 15:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Jacqui may have misunderstood what I said. When I said "they can but most of these don't" I was responding to the statement that "lists can sort articles in other ways than just alphabetically". I see no good way to improve these lists with additional sorting that can't be done by (sub)categories. Any such improvement wouldn't be "cleanup" either, it would be structural development. However DocendoDiscimus' point about cleanup is well made and the fundamental reason for the proposal. Rd232 talk 18:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That statemment borders on the absurd. Subcategories can only contain names in alphabetical lists with no additional information about the entries. Lists can be sorted in dozens of ways (turnover; location, sector, assets, structure, ownership, profitablity etc etc) and can contain several pieces of information about each item. There are some excellent lists on some other topics. It is a pity that Wikipedia's coverage of companies is one of its weakest areas, but there is plenty of time to improve it. CalJW 19:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find your statement across the border from absurd. You can't possibly have seriously thought through the maintainability implications of doing this widely, much beyond just List of companies by revenue (which is just revenue, and just top global companies). Imagine List of British companies by turnover, List of British companies by location, List of British companies by sector, List of British companies by assets, List of British comapnies by profitability, List of British companies by employment, List of British companies by location and turnover.... That's a fricken' companies database (which I happen to have some familiarity with). Maintainability of the companies lists is bad enough with just names; how would it be with all that extra information to find and update on an annual or quarterly basis? And why should we keep lists that now do nothing that categories (supplemented with specialised redlink lists) can't because one day they might (pigs might fly) turn into the absurdity of a companies database maintained in wikitext form? If Wikipedia is ever to do something along those lines, it will have to involve templates and probably a software change. Wikipedia should only store detailed up-to-date company data in one place - the company article. Anything else is, well, absurd. Rd232 talk 21:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmph, it seems that some people seriously believe Wiki can be like Bloomberg - but then without the 100's of paid staff to keep the database (semi)-complete. So who's going to be put up for NY mayor nomination? DocendoDiscimus 21:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't support the idea of deleting articles en bloc. They should be nominated and considered individually. Guettarda 14:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the intention is not to delete any information, but onyl change structure, I disagree. But I appear to be in the minority. Rd232 talk 18:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There are for instance 84 lists of companies by country. Do you really think it makes sense to have 84 seperate discussions? DocendoDiscimus 15:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every list is of different quality and of interest to different people. They should be treated the same way as any other article. But there is no need to have any of those 84 discussions, as there was no need for this one. This debate could have been about deleting all lists (with the odd named exception), without giving notice to the people who use the lists and are therefore stakeholders in them. Would that have been appropriate too? CalJW 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per the majority of comments above. --Vivenot 14:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary - the case is that lists which solely duplicate category functionality are better off as categories, especially if they duplicate actually existing categories. This is more maintainable. Lists should only exist as lists if there is a reason: eg List of companies by revenue and List of missing company articles. All others simply more work than categories to no great purpose. With voting at 8/4 keep/delete, I still see no convincing argument for preferring lists to categories. Rd232 talk 18:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - since a fair proportion of discussion is about process rather than substance, is it worth AfD'ing List of Afghan companies, List of aerial lift manufacturers and List of companies traded at BOVESPA as test cases? If yes, how many of the 84+ country and sector lists do we need to debate individually before the principle is established either way? Or should we just continue to debate in general terms? Rd232 talk 15:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no need for any further debate. All you will do is waste a lot of other users' time which could be put to better use. Things like the Afghan list are valuable as a starting point for coverage of countries where Wikipedia is weak. There is no reasonable doubt which way the debate would go, so please don't behave like a school deletionist and merrily waste wikipedia's human resources on a lost cause. CalJW 18:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's unwarranted because (a) school deletion is about notability, which is irrelevant here; (b) I was open to persuasion but nothing that anybody has said has convinced me to prefer lists instead of categories for these cases; (c) because lists are harder to maintain they long-term waste far more time than any AfD (d) a 2/3 - 1/3 vote is not a "lost cause" when the keep voting is based, as far as I can see, on no good arguments. For example, "Things like the Afghan list are valuable as a starting point" says absolutely nothing about why lists that can be converted to categories are better than categories, or why lists that duplicate categories should exist. Rd232 talk 19:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CalJW that the general opinion here seems to move towards a keep vote. I do hope that those who argue in favor of keeping the lists, will show the same fervour in actually improving them. The believe that some seem to have that the existence of certain lists will get people to add more and better articles is admirable, but in my mind rather naive. Should those 'keep' voter feel so inclined though, please do become member of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics improvement drive. DocendoDiscimus 19:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not sure where this vote/debate should lead, but added external link to Companies House web site for company info. to List of British companies, hope you'll all find this a useful primary source for British companies, at least. Sloman 19:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. Links to that and things like Hoovers would be useful from List of missing company articles. Rd232 talk 19:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We already have lists of missing company articles in the form of red links on the existing lists, which are more spedific and can therefore be more precisely categorised so they will be seen by more people with relevant knowledge. It is implausible that a single central list would be more effective. CalJW 19:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that a single central list doesn't make sense. But do you believe the red links that are currently in the lists are in any way a sign of missing articles? Most red links are put in as linkspam. One of the few ways of having some objectiveness in what constitutes a major company is the inclusion in a stock market index. And these index entries already (should) list their constituents, including red links. DocendoDiscimus 19:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are many valid red links. If some of the lists need be to cleaned up the appropriate response is to clean them up rather than to delete them. Any company which would surive afd is also a legitimate link, and any links for companies which would not that may exist are hardly taking up a lot of space or causing a major distraction. Not all major companies are listed by any means. There are many multi-billion dollar private and state owned companies, as well as many subsidiaries which merit articles, and indeed plenty of subsidiaries which have them (ASDA, Bank of Scotland and Abbey are three very large British examples). CalJW 19:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree that in theory it sounds like a great plan - someone sees the list, adds companies (or subsidiaries) that are missing, and then later someone else sees there's a company without an entry, so (s)he starts writing it. Unfortunately, that's not how it has been done until now. Please check the histories of the lists, and you'll see that typically few people bother to add anything, unless it's because they've changed another entry. Having lists just because you hope that at one point in future they will actually have any purpose doesn't make sense IMHO. Instead of trying to get the lists to mirror the categories, people should focus their energies on adding company templates etc. - DocendoDiscimus 20:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve makes more sense than destroying what has already been done. Carina22 19:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (just for now), as said before the general consensus seems to be to keep the lists. If they are a structured list, they can still be of help to some of us in developing categories. In keeping them we still have something to gain from them and nothing to lose. In deleting them, we have something to lose but nothing to gain. I say only delete them, if the majority of us no longer find them of any use.
  • Comment - it appears that enough people wish to keep lists. But surely a proposal to delete the categories would fair even worse. Yet the present situation leads to the following:
  • Keep for reasons already given. Honbicot 23:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I weren't so tired of this subject I'd ask you to state those reasons in your own words, because I still I don't see any good reason to duplicate categories with lists or vice versa. Never mind though. I have no objections to somebody closing this discussion as despite some support for the general idea it clearly isn't going anywhere. Rd232 talk 23:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Lots of red links, A lot of work to be done. NSR (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While lists are certainly useful, even if there are categories, I find the list of companies too large, spam-targets and almost always incomplete (Note: This is from my own experience as I watch the List of Indian companies, which is fairly small.). It would be better to break down the list into smaller and more managable lists. But I am not in favour of and overnight deletion or a blanket policy. If it suits you, use it or if it doesn't, replace it with a better solution. --Pamri • Talk • Reply 17:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I found the 'article' very useful, although I would also support its replacement with a category containing all the same information. Dont just delete it unless you're prepared to replace it. 88.105.251.6
Categorizification for lists not retained was part of the deletion proposal. Rd232 talk 18:47, 3 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 HappyCamper 02:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi's Quest

[edit]

This is a fan-made game made by hacking a ROM image. It's the videogame equivalent of fanfic. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:35, 26 October 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 Doc glasgow as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Fisher

[edit]

The page says he is a cinematographer from Seattle and that's it. Not on IMDb. JW 14:08, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Joe

[edit]

Fixing nomination by User:Tiksustoo. Abstain. — JIP | Talk 11:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Sorry, but if a magician is performing at birthday parties, schools, and restaurants (per his Web site), he/she is non-notable. —Wayward Talk 14:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be shown he invented a succesfull effect or that he wrote a book or performed in a big venue or for television. - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not Wikiworthy. maybe doing excellent work but as he doesn't merit national or international media coverage isn't 'notable' for Wiki purposes. i say this in good faith having tidied up this guy's page before doing AfD; otherwise would've been 'speedy delete' candidate.Tiksustoo 15:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not worthy of an article. — Wackymacs
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 redir to FLCL. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manga Vision

[edit]

An article about a style of animation that appeared in a grand total of one animated series for a grand total of about three minutes. While the style was indeed remarkable, it's already discussed on the page for said series (FLCL), and the fact that it isn't used anywhere else makes it too unique for its own article, methinks. Garrett Albright 14:13, 26 October 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Daniel

[edit]

Made up writer, not in Amazon or through google to be found. feydey 23:39, 26 October 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 move to Masta Ace. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Master Ace

[edit]

I don't believe he meets the notability criteria at WP:MUSIC. Despite that being a pretty big hamburger. Tempshill 22:39, 26 October 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matchbox (song)

[edit]

The Beatles are surely the most influential group in rock history (and I love them to death) but is every single song they did inherently notable? Especially this: a cover and a B-side, completely unexpandable. StarryEyes 02:30, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt and mookie band

[edit]

Completely nn vanity. User also contributed Mookie perez and "Spookie" Mookie Perez, both up for deletion. Delete StarryEyes 03:42, 26 October 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mattism

[edit]

Funny, but not real and a little offensive. Lomacar 00:31, 26 October 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 17:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McWords

[edit]

Article is simply a list of words starting with a particular prefix (Mc-) and does not provide a solid basis or context for justifying encyclopedic status (cultural context, etc.). Delete Bumm13 19:30, 26 October 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 17:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Kor

[edit]
If it's kept without merging someone should provide a lead sentence with more context. - Mgm|(talk) 11:43, 26 October 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Brady (musician)

[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:38, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Calhoun

[edit]

Bio for an apparently non-notable writer. Contentions for notability are not WP:V; Google and Amazon have never heard of him or his books: [22], [23]. Google also has never heard of the award he won: [24] . Possibly a hoax; certainly not verifiable. Delete. Also note that Kalamazoo College has a link here.--Isotope23 20:59, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota gang

[edit]

Unverifiable. No search results for either "Minnesota Tyrants" or "Minnesota Kennedy Kings." Note that to actually read the article, you have to view the source, as the format is all messed up, which made me think it was a copyvio at first, but I couldn't find any source on the web. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:07, 26 October 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 Speedied as nn single-person vanity

Mookie perez

[edit]

not notable per WP:MUSIC cohesion | talk 03:26, 26 October 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 Userfied, deleted resulting redirect after being moved to User:Mugheesbhatti HappyCamper 02:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mughees Bhatti

[edit]

No evidence of notability, probably a misplaced user page - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:58, 26 October 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 to keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia literacy

[edit]

DELETE. The article doubles up on information found in other articles, article should be deleted or content moved and page redirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.120.254 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It would help understand the criticism if you indicate where it should be placed, or where it is already covered? Travers 12:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an incomplete mishmash of postmodernist nonsense that attempts to 'explain' a suspected neologism by reference to the methods used. Eddie.willers 11:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Eddie, todays neologism (newly coined word or phrase) is sometimes tomorrow's dictionary entry. A quick search on multimedia literacy will show that it is in the title of many books and university courses. This doesn't prove that it means anything of course, but maybe it deserves a little attention, even if it is to put a critical and reasoned point of view. Travers 12:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep unless more evidence provided of its duplicating other articles. I despise these pseudo-academic fads, but it does appear to have at least some currency. - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOR. Radiant_>|< 17:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- The person who proposed the article for deletion made constructive edits to the page and then proposed it for deletion. Seems a bit strange to me. Regardless the article seems to have valuable content, as far as I understand it describes the process of combining new technologies with traditional understandings of literacy. Author should however consider better linking the article in with other literacy and education articles.Perhaps this article should be marked for cleanup rather than deletion. AdelaideRandel 02:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep artilce doesn't seem to be Original research nor a "mishmash of postmodernist nonsense".129.96.120.254 07:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep- This is not a pseudo-academic fad nor is it a mishmash of postmodernist nonsense. Anyone with a bit of investigative skills and common sense to see it for what it is would realise that the area of multimedia literacy is becoming widely reported on from many sources besides academics alone. Do an online search, the last Google search I did with exact phrase "multimedia literacy" produced 40800 hits (although I did not sit down to read them all). The Federal Government in Australia (and other countries) spends massive amounts of money researching this area annually at some level of use by the population. It has even been included into the school curriculum at the expense of millions of Australian tax payer funded dollars. Yes I agree that some areas cross over and could be linked better, but how about we give Travers a break and let him get on top of it by editing it and addressing this issue. After all the page itself has only recently been created and has so much potential. I would like to add that the IP Address for which this article has been recommended for deletion is a Flinders University IP and the author has not signed his request by having logged in. I wonder is this a student of Travers causing mischief and mayhem at his expense. This is an assumption on my behalf as the first name of Travers appears to have been used in one edit comment on the history page & a university IP address was logged at the time of this entry (see page history @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?


title=Multimedia_literacy&action=history). The unidentified author is from an address that has been reported for vandalism to another file (solar system) see page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:129.96.120.254 to confirm. I reiterate again "STRONG KEEP", but amend/edit. Just A Girl 00:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if "Just A Girl" is a student of Travers engading in a bit of brown nosing.

Wouldn't be a Wednesday morning tutorial student being malicious by any chance IP 129.96.120.254 would you? (time seems to fit then) maybe you shouldn't swipe you student card at the door and make these attacks on a PC that you personally have logged onto, easy enough to trace, lets face it the internet is not as anonymous as you might think. Let us hope Travers lets you get away with this one, but you should be more careful in future. Don't go stuffing it up for the rest of us and get us blocked with your malicious work. 138.217.216.144 01:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think enough has been said in this little debate, could an administrator archive this page and remove the AFD, I think it may be a tad supercilious. As a side note if people wish to engage in flame wars or whatever please find a more appropriate forum. I have struckout the sections above that I would regard as inappropriate for inclusion in this section as they add nothing to the debate. AdelaideRandel 06:37, 2 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 redire to Vampire Counts. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Necrarch Bloodline

[edit]

Gamecruft Jdavidb (talk) 17:42, 26 October 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Necrozoophilia

[edit]

This article purports to be about a psychological condition, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the term is actually used anywhere except possibly as a joke or hoax. A Google search shows 500 hits ... largely Wikipedia mirrors and bootlegs. I think this article is a hoax. FOo 05:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I don't think a fetishism of dead animals is particularly common to merit its own article. — JIP | Talk 09:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a real disorder dr.alf 11:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 11:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable, probably a neologism. - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect merge anything worthy, and redirect to Necrobestiality with note on Necrobestiality about Necrozoophilia, which will require removing the darn redirect which currently exists from Necrobestiality to Necrozoophilia. No one said this would be simple, sigh. I agree its rare, and its icky, but it's real, and definately not a neologism. This term itself is not well documented on the 'net, but there is Paraphalia on MedicalGeo , Paraphilia on AnxietyZone, as well as about a thousand on the more common term Necrobestiality (which should lay to rest your concerns about the reality of the practice itself.) Its sex with dead animals, which is not something that hard to comprehend when you know about necrophilia, sex with dead people, and bestiality, sex with live animals. This is precisely the kind of thing that makes WikiPedia such a valuable resource - what if someone really wanted to know about this, and we'd deleted it because we were hasty or lazy and didn't research it before relegating it incorrectly to "hoax" or "neologism" status? KillerChihuahua 15:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
also:

[25] (Section 5) and Psychcentral and Google for "Necrobestiality paraphilia". This is not a neologism. necrozoophilia is one of four paraphilias considered common to seriel killers, and it is noteable. KillerChihuahua 11:14, 27 October 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 DEL. — brighterorange (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ned dutton

[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:39, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neocodex

[edit]

Neocodex is a blatent cheat site advertising and apparently pwns you all. These cheaters are breaking the rules --Cloveious 04:39, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newsfeedmaker.com

[edit]

Non-notable, advertising. - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:52, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NoYz?

[edit]

NN Serbian band. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:57, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oak International

[edit]

Advertisement for a non-notable Catholic group. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:42, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Maguire

[edit]

Not notable person since the group is not notable i.e. not in WP, in Allmusic and quick search in google gave nothing. feydey 23:33, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opus15

[edit]

Non-notable. Laudable, but not yet notable. - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As with many locally-grown music movements - it's my contention that although possibly not-yet-notable to many, this article and others like it should be included for the significant number of users to whom this article is notatble. May I also refer you to the Music Notability Discussion -- DesignbyGecko 00:51, 30 October 2005

  • Absolutely every band in the world, however bad, is notable to at least its members. Many of these bands go through several changes of personnel (and often name) before disappearing without ever having made a mark. Their own assertions of "spearheading" new movements in music are generally unverifiable. Unless and until a band has reached some reasonably verifiable and measurable level of success (e.g. making top 100 in the indie charts) I can't see much point adding them. One of the problems with the deletion policy as-is, though, is that it is inherently vulnerable to those with an agenda (see the never-ending debate re minor schools); it's not that I don't respect the views of inclusionists, but a voting process is about our personal view of how the article measures up to our interpretation of the criteria for inclusion. Minor bands are hard to verify, and minor bands' pages are generally written by fans so will often fail WP:NPOV with no hope of balance because only their fans have ever heard of them. I have no idea how to fix this, other than by using something like Wikicities. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. -- DesignbyGecko 01:12, 31 October 2005
  • Delete per nom. PS. The Olsen twins on vocals?? Aecis 23:33, 31 October 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 relisting. Vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out of School Suspension. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of School Suspension

[edit]

Shouldn't this be in Wiktionary? Or deleted outright? Devotchka 22:02, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pakelika

[edit]

One of a number of very messy articles written about members of The Kottonmouth Kings and other artists on Suburban Noize Records. I'm cleaning up some of them where possible. Others, like Pakelika, are hopelessly non-encyclopedic, assert no verifiable notability for their subject other than as a member of the collective, and include no basis on which to write a good article. These should probably be deleted. TheMadBaron 11:11, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Park Circus

[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. The IP that added it was recently used for vandalism. Does not seem verifiable with google. [26] chowells 13:24, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Party Animal

[edit]

Made up film/tv show? No imbd listing, none of the credited people worked on any production by this name (or containing those words) or with each other. Unless someone has some other way to determine what this article is about it is unverifiable, delete--nixie 05:08, 26 October 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. -Doc (?) 22:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter a barnard

[edit]

Unencyclopedic/non-notable person--josh 20:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Been blanked now a speedy--josh 20:50, 26 October 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dunn

[edit]

Unverifiable resume for a person that doesn't meet the biography guidelines. delete--nixie 05:21, 26 October 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 no consensus. Most people want it deleted in some way, but even that is basically even. NC. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical interpretation of classical physics

[edit]

Original Research Trödel|talk 02:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

[edit]
  • Delete A well written, if legnthy, explanation of why idiots like me need Quantum Mechanics explained to them in philosophical terms. He's probably right, however, Wikipedia WP:ISNOT a publisher of original thought. --CastAStone 02:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete It seems to be a question of how closely one should follow one's sources. I started the article to balance what seems an outdated and error-prone point of view in other Wikipedia articles (and to learn how to teach physics), and it has progressed nicely.
As a compromise, I suggest:
Suppose we rename Interpretation of quantum mechanics to History of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, rename this article to "Subtleties of the relation between quantum an classical descriptions of nature", and archive this entire article and re-write it, closer to its text book sources but without plagiarizing?
There is good historical material in that other article, but its title, as it is, is misleadingly outdated. Its category would change from physics to history of physics.
Part of the objective for the new article should be to help understand entanglement, if possible.
Text book authors work hard to make it believable to people who did not grow up exposed to quantum mechanics, and maybe there is much more of that quality that can be taken without adhering too closely. This would allow this article to be checked paragraph by paragraph against its sources, as people here want, but would still be representative of a modern view.
Of course, I would prefer that this be done incrementally.
There are other article with similar outdated classical point of view.
David R. Ingham 11:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Interpretation of quantum mechanics is appropriate given what most readers know, and where they expect to find, and that articles should not be titled to make a a point as you're suggesting. I also think it is more appropriate to edit articles you think are wrong than to write a new article on the same subject so that you can treat it the way you want. Hence my merge vote below. -- SCZenz 20:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Several remarks.
1) this article appears to be about QM and not classical physics. There is such a thing as the philosophy of classical mechanics, but this article does not appear to actually discuss any of it (Everything I've seen on the philosophy of classical mechanics dealt with the nature of determinism, since solutions to differential equations seem to imply determinism. More recently, that philosophy wanders off to discuss chaotic dynamics. I've never seen it discuss QM). So at a minimum, this article needs to be renamed to philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics,
2) This article could be named philosophical failures of classical mechanics if it was enlarged to talk about non-quantum issues, e.g. chaos, or the impact of special/general relativity to classical concepts of time and space. or e.g. Mach principle. There's no discussion of the (non-)constancy of constants, (for example, the electric charge varies with distance, or e.g. asymptotic freedom) (for example, the speed of light is locally constant, but the amount of time it takes for light to cross a de Sitter universe is something like 3 times the size of the universe, implying that in a certain sense "light slows down" when thought about in a global way, as the universe expands. Locally, the speed of light is just a conversion from time units to space units. Globally it is something quite different.). There's no discussion of mass, where mass comes from, why there's more matter than anti-matter, etc. Why the universe isn't rotating. No discussion of why time is one dimensional but space isn't. No mention of Kaluza-Klein theories as alternate conceptions of space and time.
3) While it does discuss some of the actual issues the differentiate QM from classical, it is written in an 'original research' style. Its a very unusual presentation of only a small subset of the topics that are usually discussed. I won't vote for deletion, but the article has failings as currently structured. linas 14:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In answer to the above 1), I think a better title can be found but it is not "philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics" or "interpretation of quantum mechanics". The probabilities encountered when using an approximation to a theory belong to the approximation and not to the theory, even if it is an approximation without which one cannot get out of bed. I don't argue with 2) 3). Feel free to change the style of my parts of it. I agree with merging and changing the title to something new. David R. Ingham 20:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wonder exactly why the nominator is calling this original research (this is an honest question, not a veiled attack on the nomination)? Is it just the style in which it is written or is there more to it? It quotes more references that the average Wikipedia article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the core of the POV of David R. Ingham, i.e. the core of the article as originally written, pertains to discussions supposedly in Albert Messiah's two volume Quantum Mechanics. Messiah is given as the researcher whose views the article is said to report, but Ingham has not responded to repeated requests to provide the citation. The thought experiment that Messiah supposedly discusses is generally known as Heisenberg's Microscope (Google for many articles that do not support Ingham's account), and it was important in the early development of quantum physics. It pertains to the problems involved in using a photon to measure the position of an electron. Articles and books pertaining to this thought experiment generally provide a diagram. Messiah's book is very well written, and very well indexed. Reading all the materials indexed under "electron" does not uncover the discussion that Ingham claims as the basis for his report. Searching the index for Heisenberg's Microscope provides nothing at all. Scanning the entire book for diagrams related to any experiment in which a photon is bounced off of an electron in an attempt to learn about it also yields no positive results. In the absence of a citation to the assertions that are at the core of the issue, the actual authorship of the assertions appears to rest with Ingham.
As for the numerous citations, I think I have provided most of them. The several citations I supplied apply only to peripheral issues, to statements of the sort that I would regard almost as common knowledge, and certainly not to the controversial thesis advanced by Ingham. For me, the biggest problem in dealing with this article is that the core article, the material that appears to imply that Greene and other current writers on the subject have it wrong, is extremely unclear. I, for one, cannot help to make it any clearer without a look at the original sources from which this account was derived. Messiah is one source and Ingham's lecture notes from quite some time ago on the account of a university physics professor appear to be the other source -- a source that is quite naturally unavailable. P0M 02:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If my guessimate of the meaning of Ingham's thesis is correct, then this article would be antithetical to another article Quantum_indeterminacy. P0M 03:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Measuring electrons with photons is in there in Messiah, at least once. I will look where. I had been thinking that looking at new sources would be more useful than arguing about old ones. He uses this example at least to make the point that if one had classical light to measure with, qm would not stand, because the measuring device would violate the uncertainty principle. (Feynman also very briefly mentions this.)
If that's all Messiah says then how does it support the contentions that he is supposedly propping up? And where does Feynman make his brief mention, please? P0M 07:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you possibly mean the passage in Messiah, I, p. 143 f.? P0M 08:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the central issues are that the earlier one accepts qm, the easier it is, from an educational point of view, and that, from an academic point of view, that the most reliable sources for an encyclopedia are usually text books, graduate level in case of dispute—other sources are too hard to sort through and evaluate. (I need advice on how closely they should be followed.) Verbal discussions are good except that arguments about them can't be settled.
Accepting these assumptions, the point of view that classical mechanics needs to be described from a quantum point of view and not visa versa will eventually prevail, in some form, whether I persist or not.
The next step is to read more recent text books, not to go backward.
I do not accept the view that because this is cryptic, to even some physicists, it is inappropriate for the reader who looks this far. One should hear how things really are, in simple words, as soon as possible, even if it takes time to understand. Simplify if you like, but don't write or keep things that are not entirely accurate.
David R. Ingham 05:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not the place to push a non-standard view of how physics should be taught. You arguments suggest that this is original research, on pedagogy, if not on physics. If you want to write an article on an alternate approach to teaching QM, and cite sources, that's one thing; but picking Wikipedia as a ground for trying out a new approach is not what this place is for. I also disagree with your views, but that's a discussion for another forum. -- SCZenz 06:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy (that is, move to a page like User:David R. Ingham/Philosophical interpretation of classical physics). Based on the comments of P0M and, more importantly, David R. Ingham himself, the article is too close to a personal essay for me. Furthermore, the article appears to be a content fork, since David prefers creating a separate article instead of fixing (perceived) shortcomings in existing articles. However, obviously much work has gone into the article and we might want to merge some of the material into other articles, though it is not immediately clear to me what we want to merge. That is why I'm not proposing a straightforward delete, but a move outside of the main article space. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make user friendly. I have no idea what he's saying in this article. The subject needs to be presented in a way us stupid people can understand. I feel extremely stupid reading this article. None of this makes any sense. Make it stupid-people friendly, you know, Quantum Physics for Dummies or something. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 01:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about your proposed titles. I always hate the dismissive attitude of "xyz for Dummies" books, but your idea in essence is not bad. There are a couple of problem in talking about this kind of stuff. (1) The behavior of things on this very small scale is not what we expect to see. If prisoners in cement block cells were found in some small percentage of cases to "evaporate" from their cells and "materialize" outside the prison wall, we would not even consider any possibility other than that trickery was involved. But that's what electrons can do. (2) The way of talking about things that allows us to even begin to make sense out of things can involve complicated mathematics. But it isn't impossible to talk sensibly about what is going on. Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos does an excellent job. I think the ideal Beginners Guide article would describe some of the basic phenomena and perhaps tell people how to do experiments that would show them some of the weird stuff. Now that laser pointers are available for tens of dollars rather than hundreds of dollars, everybody can make his/her own double-slit apparatus. (I just made one a week or so ago with a plastic box, some nails, and some toy plastic railroad tracks. Since I already had the laser pointer, my out of pocket expenses were $2 to buy the plastic items at the local "dollar store."}
Many if not most of the physics articles jump in at or near the deep end of the pool, use undefined symbols in mathematical statements of principles, etc. There is no way for, e.g., a high school student with no calculus and nothing more than a general science course in hand to have the foggiest idea of what is going on.
Probably there needs to be consideration of this issue on the "project" level.
Never forget the power of one and the value of σ  ;-) P0M 02:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is Quantum Mechanics - simplified. -- SCZenz 05:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although I still have doubts about whether this article can be saved from its original research nature, I do think the subject matter should be covered somewhere - and maybe already is. I have attempted to rewrite the intro to make it more accessible - please comment. Trödel|talk 12:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The part of that article on measurement is incomprehensible. I have no trouble with Reichenbach, Messiah, Pauli, Greene..., but I have no idea what is being asserted there. I think I have found the part of Messiah's textbook that was given as authority, but it does not even suggest answers to my questions. There may be people here who know what he is talking about because they know the subject so well that undefined terms and terms that are wikified to explanations that do not apply in context of that paragraph will nevertheless be clear to them. So I am going to put my comments on the discussion page to this page. Maybe somebody will be able to clear things up. If not, it will be clear evidence of what is wrong with the argument. P0M 14:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See the discussion page.P0M 16:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trödel, I have made some progress with the introduction, and have also suggested that the title be changed. I have received no help from experts who may be able to intuit what the author is trying to say in the measurement section. Please comment. P0M 04:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oy vey. I'll take a look at it, or get someone else at physics to. -- SCZenz 06:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just looked, and I have to say I don't think it can be rewritten to be readable by people who don't understand quantum mechanics already, at least not without destroying much of the information in the article (heh). I really don't understand what the purpose of the approach is—the author seems to want to teach quantum mechanics by assuming people know it already. -- SCZenz 06:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The "radical" didactic principle is that one should stick to the real facts when simplifying, even if people get less of a feeling of understanding at the time they read it, because unlearning is harder than learning. For a physics article in an encyclopedia, this means avoiding physics from popular sources that can't be justified with references to high level text books. I have illustrated this by an example of an error in Physics Today caused by not following this principle.
The least I may have accomplished is to call people's attention to this. David R. Ingham 11:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic can not be explained at all without the use of jargon that is not accessible to reasonably intelligent people then the article needs to be edited to remove the jargon or removed. No one has claimed that we have to use "popular sources" only that the material be sufficiently explained and that it be notable enough to be referenceable. For example, only recently have you even identified the thesis of the article, "Philosophical interpretation of classical physics is a discussion of the spurious content in the classical description." (I think that is the intended thesis - correct me if I misunderstood).
The reason I am even spending time on this is because I do think that the idea that I think the article wants to convey is very interesting. I.e. that classical physics was so pervasive in our society and thinking that it influenced other disciplines in unexpected ways. Additionally, because the extrapolations of classical physics were not correct in their predictions QM was developed. Unfortunately, however, the influence of classical physics on other disciplines did not completely disappear when QM was introduced and other disciplines still make assumptions based on classical physics that have since been proven to not properly describe nature. If this can be explained well then PICP will be an excellent article. Trödel|talk 12:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I normally lean towards inclusionist, I think that the inability to produce references for the main thesis of this article has pushed me over to delete. If someone wants to userfy or merge some content first, I'm cool with that, too. — Laura Scudder | Talk 16:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article title seems a perfectly valid one, and not intrinsically OR. I've hacked it extensively & little of the original now remains. What I'm not sure of is if the material is essentially duplicated elsewhere. William M. Connolley 19:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Move to wikinfo.org, where original research is ALLOWED. GangofOne 03:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - As it stands, the article seems to represent a more personal than historical view. I think it perhaps the original author should keep it on his own space until he clarifies all points (especially the classical mechanics vs. QM) as well as his sources. I would be okay with a merge with Interpretation of quantum mechanics. --Dataphiliac 00:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is language dominant

[edit]
If we put some dummy headings in, we wouldn't have to edit the whole page at once. - Done above :)

As a dyslectic, I am offended by the assumption that language should be dominant. About physics, what cannot be justified mathematically should be deleted. What people don't understand only wastes their time.David R. Ingham 06:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the only method we have for communicating complex scientific ideas to a non-initiate is through the use of language. Using mathematical descriptions is great as long as the "language" of mathematics is spoken by the intended audience. In this case it is not; thus, we revert to explaining in the language that we share in common with the audience.
I would check out wikicities or other available resources for communicating in a more structured, scientific fashion. Trödel|talk 10:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping up / Tally

[edit]

It looks like at best we have a concensus to save the language somewhere (merge or userfy) and delete/redirect the current article. I am going to post another notice on the Physics WikiProject to see if we can get some more input from knowledgeable editors. As nominator I still think the article reads too much like a personal essay and original research - so I listed myself as delete below - although I strongly support moving content to userspace with edit history and listing the article at the Physics WikiProject to see if anything more can be done to make the article more accessible and encyclopedic. Trödel|talk 10:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of full disclosure - I have solicited opinions from all the Physics WikiProject participants (who have not already opined) directly on their talk page Trödel|talk 10:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

  1. User:David R. Ingham
  2. User:MarSch
  3. William M. Connolley

Merge (i.e. keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article and redirect)

  1. User:SCZenz "...with Interpretation of quantum mechanics"
  2. User:prashanthns "...don't delete"
  3. User:Patrick0Moran With the most recent changes there is little left even to merge.

Delete

  1. User:CastAStone
  2. User:Carnildo
  3. User:Trödel
  4. User:Karol Langner
  5. Laura Scudder

Userfy (i.e. keep the article's content but move it to the user space and delete)

  1. User:Jitse_Niesen
  2. User:SCZenz
  3. (P0M) (Recommend Ingham recover his original material, move it to his user space, and then work from valid citations back to whatever he is trying to communicate.)
  4. User:Dataphiliac (wouldn't mind merge)

Comments

[edit]

I think a lot of the article makes a lot of sense. Basically it states that since we still insist on Newtonian mechanics which is flawed at the atomic level to describe experiments and what we measure, a probabilistic description is what we obtain. If we also knew the exact quantum state of our measuring equipment there would be no probabilities. I guess if there is a Copenhagen interpretation, then this article is also justified as an alternate interpretation and possible way out of the measuring problem. I wouldn't say there is any original research since it is a completely obvious alternative. I would like a better title like .... interpretation of quantum mechanics. Merging with Interpretation of quantum mechanics is also acceptable. --MarSch 10:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't this point be made in a few sentences? Isn't it already made in other articles? Karol 11:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A delete would also be acceptable to me, since it seemed more and more like OR on education as the discussion went on. I don't know if it's still appropriate to change my vote, though, so I'm just noting that here. -- SCZenz 15:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to "userfy." I suspect that the author was trying to say something in the original core of the article that may be worthwhile. If it were put in clear mathematics complemented by clear Engish, then there would be a fair basis for deciding what it means and whether it is at least the point of view on or interpretation of somebody like Bohm.P0M 03:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And changed it again, assuming that the article is what is left of the original after William M. Conolley's edit. If the original author had a contribution to make, despite his difficulties in communicating, that contribution has been eroded away. Of what is left, there is nothing that should not have been well covered elsewhere. P0M 20:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just hacked most of it out and replaced it with my own interpretation, which is hopefully the mainstream one, though I'm open to correction. It could do with more by experts. But the basic idea seems sensible and not OR; Karol suggested that these points were made elsewhere: are they? William M. Connolley 19:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I like the style alot better, but it still reads like a "blah-blah" essay to me. In any case, I can't see why we should have a page with such a pretentious title when, for startes, classical physics is almost a stub (see my comment in the voting section also). Karol 06:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to argue this too strongly - I don't really care all that much. But I don't think that just because CP is nearly a stub this should go. If CP is a stub then there is an awful lot of other stuff that should go into it before this does, or it will be very unbalanced. William M. Connolley 09:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Karol, basically. The original article seemed to have something to say about aspects of QM that may fail to get adequate coverage in popularizations like Amir D. Aezel's Entanglement. Now there is nothing that is not already in other QM articles. If there was anything of value hidden in the original article behind the extremely muddy writing, it exists only in the history of the article now. I tried very hard, spending probably 30 hours reading my collection of physics books that goes back to the 60s, trying to get a line onto what he was really trying to communicate. I tried many times in many ways to get Ingham to give citations or clarifications. All of this I did in the hope we would not come to the point where anything of value would be edited away as incomprehensible. That's why I think the original article should be recovered from history and userfied. P0M 15:27, 4 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 Deleted by RHaworth as nonsense. --GraemeL (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pig cinese

[edit]

This article is nonsense. Catamorphism 00:48, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planetran

[edit]

Non-notable conspiracy theory. Google search turns up a little more than 200 hits, mostly on sites like reptoids.com (plus a limo company). No references in the article, either. — ceejayoz talk 22:54, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prajeesh P R

[edit]

Probably not quite a speedy, but has been tagged {{cleanup-importance}} for a month. I just removed the entry for his birth from 26 October (which, incidentally, was in 1980 and listed out-of-order). Project is "yet to be named", and I've heard no whispers from India about some major emerging technology. Maybe it's a new type of call centre that actually knows something about what they're supposed to be dealing with. Chris talk back 02:09, 26 October 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 as a copyright infringement. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy after childhood sexual abuse

[edit]

Essay and advice column, totally unencyclopedic. Delete--nixie 05:00, 26 October 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 redir to History of the Quebec sovereignty movement. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec Separatism in the 20th Century

[edit]

I've nominated this for deletion because it seems to be nothing more than a copy-paste (potentially translated from French, as its rather awkwardly written) of what is more or less an editorial. It also goes into the history of the Quebec conflict somewhat, but I imagine there are far better Wikipedia entries on the topic already.Devotchka 21:49, 25 October 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 No consensus. Keep. --Durin 21:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RealPlane

[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Deletion TAG was removed because according to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy there was never a basis for placement in the first place. Among the 'Problems that may require deletion', the page fits none of the criteria or nested criteria. This includes:

  • Under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, the page does not fit violate any rules.
  • Its not "Original research (including the coining of neologisms)" Vanity page
  • Its not "Advertising or other spam"
  • Its not "Hoax (not an article about a hoax)"
  • Its not "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic".
  • Its also not any of the other types such as a copyright violation or dictionary definition and the content abides by Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The article is a small but notable item that should never have been tagged in start with. There are indeed 'mods' that would not meet criteria, but this is not among them. Tr9ccc 17:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was not if it fit the criteria for a debate about deletion/meger- it did not fit the criteria for placing the TAG. Tr9ccc 18:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the tag only increases the article's chances for deletion because the tag directs people who are interested in the subject to the article's AfD entry, where they are likely to vote keep. An AfD tag should never be removed before concensus is reached unless it is obviously vandalism. --TantalumTelluride 20:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier attempt was not to remove the tag, which does nothing as you point out, but terminate it alltogther (not a valid method). IMO there should be been a vote to decide what kind of AFD/merger vote should take place for the page, though I suppose this system on average manages to help more then hurt. Tr9ccc 02:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


For those looking for criteria to decide if a 'mod' is notable, there are some concrete things to look for that may be helpful when forming a opinion: What files have actually been released (e.g. not just a website or news posts), and the nature of actual game content created for it (was it a few lines of code, or a complex 3-D model with textures). It can often be hard to gauge the popularity of older notable mods, but examining content and files really separate out the failed projects, game tweaks, or pretenders from more serious work. More time consuming, but very effective in judging a mod's merits, is to go play it and actually see what amount of content in terms of music, textures, and coding was actually put together.
Determining a mods level of achievement can be hard, even for those familiar with modding somtimes. However, checking for content, and not just news posts can provide a useful benchmark for separating out a wildly varying art form. Tr9ccc 04:06, 1 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 --JAranda | watz sup 01:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Palace

[edit]

No words, just pictures. HN2 03:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the IRAQ republican palace... and it does exist as a real place... move images into govt of iraq or saddam hussein somehow.  ALKIVAR™ 03:19, 26 October 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep, after it was closed early on the grounds that it was a bad-faith nomination by two editors who are here only to attack its subject. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Steadman

[edit]

There is no evidence that the subject is notable such as to merit retention of this article in any form Bakewell Tart 21:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Bakewell Tart 21:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep Bakewell Tart and Crusading Composer have a complete and unhealthy fixation with belittling the subject of this page: [29] [30] Should such a fixation lead to a page being deleted? Also he's composed for the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Evelyn Glennie, written operas with libretti by John Masefield and Richard Adams - shall I go on? Maybe not a household name but he's done enough to be included.
  • Strong and Speedy Keep. They have also been trying to remove all the justified links in other pages so that it appears Steadman only appears in this one article. This is a huge manipulation of Wikipedia - inexperienced and new editors, with a fixation and, it seems, out to make a name for themselves. I wonder if they know the subject of the article in real life and are trying to have a go? It seems somewhat like that. 86.137.230.153 21:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep. I assert that this nomination was made in bad faith. Bakewell Tart has made only 14 edits, all of which were to the article in question, its talk page, or this AfD. He/she has been involved in an edit war and has at least twice deleted most of the information in the article, and appears to have a POV vendetta against the subject. And for the record, there is no question of the subject's notability; he is a major figure in the UK contemporary composing scene, as well as his academic career, covered in other sources, widely reviewed, etc. MCB 21:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Steadman may not be the most famous composer in the world but he is reasonably well known and has written commissioned pieces for the likes of Evelyn Glennie (http://www.evelyn.co.uk/COMMISSIONS.htm) which puts him in pretty exalted company. - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also very concerning that the two editors who have caused so much trouble with this article have usernames which relate to the subject of the article? He is a composer and he teaches in Bakewell? There is something not right about this - further investigation is needed.
Whoah! I'm not bothered either way. I am not out to get Mr Steadman. In fact, I had thought that I had done a good job in tidying up one of the paragraphs - none of the 'official' editors minded enough to change it. The only edits I have made are regarding 'educationailst' - Mr Steadman's 'official' editors don't seem to know what the word means. As far as I was concerned, the curtailing of the article was sanctioned by Mr Steadman himself as a way of heading off further vandalism. I'm new to this but I am fed up of the way that User:86.137.230.153 keeps on calling me a vandal. I have made what I consider to be fair edits - not vandalism. I have deleted Mr Steadman's name from various lists - there seems to be some kind of confusion - getting your name on as many wikipedia pages as possible isn't evidence of notability - User:86.137.230.153 seems to think that I am trying to make him seem less famous - surely it is this page and this page alone that determines whether he is notable and whether he deserves to be on the lists. Since Mr Steadman himself asked for the article to be deleted, I am sure that my actions won't be unswelcome.

It seems to me that if the subject has requested deletion then the opinion of someone who claims to have no contact or authority shouldn't override that decision. It seems a bit... unhealthy to me to have someone laying out every detail of your life when you have not asked them to do so. I think that the shortened article was much more appropriate - especially considering that Mr steadman has been receiving hate mail at his home - I'd think that he'd want to reduce the amount of VERY personal information availbale on the internet. I'll admit that I haven't edited anything outside of the articles above - but i'm a bit overwhelmed. I seem to spend a lot of time reading articles and have found nothing else that I feel knowledgable enough to edit. I haven't changed any facts just removed some inconsistencies.Crusading composer 22:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your knowledge of Steadman and where it comes from? How do you know he has receive "hate mail" at his house? Again this post by Crusading Composer doesn't really ring true, in my opinion. There is something very fishy going on. 86.137.230.153 22:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Check this link: http://www8.tes.co.uk/section/staffroom/thread.aspx?story_id=2144403&path=/Opinion/&messagePage=1&messageID=1179183#message1179183

There is no doubt that Robsteadman is Robert Steadman. He has referred other posters to his website,. He shares the same emailadrress as the website andhHe has downloaded music to those who have asked for it. He has been claiming to be Mr Steadman for many years and has even threatened legal action for libel when his 'easily identifiable' name has been libelled. In all this time, there have been no complaints to the TES administrators that Robsteadman is not Robert Steadman and has stolen his identity. I have no reason to believe that Mr steadman is NOT Robsteadman.Crusading composer 23:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have absolutely no clue about the particulars of Steadman's life and whatnot, but it doesn't take a lot of Googling to figure out that the subject merits an article. A look in the edit history of the article in questions leads me to believe that this is a bad-faith nomination, (and frankly, edits to an article about a composer with summaries that refer to "delusions of grandeur", made by someone with the username of "Crusading Composer" don't exactly convince me of NPOV, either). But that's really beside the point; the question here is whether or not this article should exist. Yes, it should. Strong and speedy keep. Anything beyond that is something to be discussed on the article's talk page, not the AfD. -- Captain Disdain 23:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'm pretty sure that I mentioned that I have no particular view either way. I have not been trying to get the article removed. I only wanted the original article to be balanced. I'm OK with the shortened article - I have even helped to improve it. That's hardly the attitude of someone hell bent on destruction, is it? If the article IS retained - which seems likely, then I hope that it has the shorter format. If the longer format is restored, I hope that someone points out to the other editors, that EVERYBODY has the right to add comments and, as long as they are not offensive or untrue, they shouldn't be deleted just because you want an article to only show the subject in glowing terms.Crusading composer 00:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could answer the above question by 86.137.230.153 as to where your knowledge of Steadman comes from. It seems that your only contribution's to Wikipedia have been to remove information from his article. Yes, of course everyone should be able to contribute to the article, but you yourself just said that info "not offensive or untrue", "shouldn't be deleted". So why, exactly were you favouring the reduction of the article with removal of large chunks of information? Information which I don't think could be in much doubt as to be factually accurate. Providing your additions remain written with a neutral point of view, are factually accurate, and encylopedic, I see no reason why they should be removed. Your removing of large chunks of text with no real justification, however, will not be accepted. I suggest you make any further issues regarding the removal or addition of information to the article on it's talk page. UkPaolo 08:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing me with someone else. I haven't removed large chunks of anyone's page. I like the short article.Crusading composer 11:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do, however, think that we should follow the wishes of the subject of this article. I do believe that he has made a formal request to have this article deleted? Perhaps I'm not following the links correctly - I am new.Crusading composer 00:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Tony Blair requested an article on himself be removed from an encyclopedia, would you oblige? I would doubt the authenticity of any such requests by Steadman, himself, but even if they were made I fail to see why we should comply when all the information given is already in the public domain. UkPaolo 08:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since when is it up to the subject of an article to ask for its deletion? This does strike me as a bad faith nomination - a new editor who has only edited one page on one subject asking fro it to be deleted. Steadman is no major fgiure but, gtom a quick google, has done a number of noteworthy things. 86.136.234.112 07:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, no. I mean, certainly, he's well within his rights to ask for removal of truly personal and private information (home addresses, phone numbers and whatnot), but taking a quick look at the edit history, I haven't seen anything of the sort there. Public information is fair game; as a somewhat prominent public figure, he's in no position to demand the removal of an encyclopedia article about him any more than, say, George W. Bush or Marilyn Manson is. Frankly, the assertion that an encyclopedia article featuring such intimate facts as how many symphonies he has composed or where he works puts him at risk is ridiculous, particularly as just about the same facts can be discovered from Steadman's own website. (And if he's getting threatening letters, it seems to me that anything Wikipedia says is completely beside the point, too, since clearly the culprits already know enough about him.) And finally, if Robert Steadman has a problem with his Wikipedia article, perhaps Robert Steadman or someone who provably represents him can deal with it. Instead of, say, some guy on the internet. -- Captain Disdain 00:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A request by a subject to have the article about them deleted is not a factor in deciding to retain or delete the article, as I explained on the Talk page, and I believe that fairly reflects Wikipedia policy and practice. It is the identical situation as with the news media; you can't tell The Times not to write a story about you. And in Steadman's case, it is clearly not the case that he is trying to hide from public note, but that the article about him has been repeated vandalized, in some cases in an actionably defamatory way. And as I explained, the remedy for that is not deletion, but vigilance on the part of editors to revert vandalism promptly. MCB 00:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have googled the man: His name appears on various lists that link back to his website - all of them lists that allow anybody to access them and add links. As for articles created by third parties that are not anonymous - well therer are less than half a dozen and one of them was concerning a burglary. He's hardly famous in any sense of the word. No, i take that back, he's more well known than I am - at least on the internet. I get around a bit - if wee total the number of people who can say "Yes, I know so and so", it might actually be a larger number than those who have heard of Mr Steadman. Maybe? Probably not.? I have got one article on the net about me, but it's more a case of 'notoriety' rather than 'notability' and I wouldn't want a wiki page about it.00:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Crusading composer 00:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hardly famous in any sense of the word? According to his website, his work has been a subject of a TVS documentary (Music Makers, 1988) and one of his songs was featured for several weeks on BBC One in 1996, and he's been reviewed in The Guardian and the Nottingham Evening Post. Oh, and we don't just need to take his word for it, since as it happens, Google returns a whole bunch of stuff about him, certainly more than "half a dozen" -- for example, this article at BBC News about his Anne Frank tribute. That's not superstardom by any means, but certainly it's an indication of some fame and popularity. Either you do not Google very well, or you do so with an agenda. Frankly, I suspect the latter. -- Captain Disdain 00:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and did you find evidence of this outside the website?Crusading composer 01:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have absolutely no reason to believe that Mr. Steadman lies about things like whether he was reviewed in the Guardian. In fact, if you're accusing him of lying, perhaps you would care to provide some proof of that? This is a guy for whom I easily get a a whole bunch of Google hits that tell me that a) he exists; b) he has indeed composed these works; c) he teaches where he says he teaches; and d) his works have been performed widely enough to meet a reasonable minimum criteria for notability. And yes, I do find it very interesting that you go from defending his privacy and telling sob stories about how he's being sent threatening letters to suddenly implying that he's not even a notable composer and that he's making things up. -- Captain Disdain 01:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have googled again and I find that if you arte looking for the composer instead of the actor, you do get about 10 pages of links. If you ignore multiple entries, references in lists set up by anonymous editors, wikipedia and articles that only link to his own website, there are less than half a dozen real articles and most of them are in his local paper. Yes, his name does appear in a lot of newspaper links, but only because he spends alot of time writing ion - they are just comments by him not about him.Crusading composer 01:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm quite capable of differentiating between the cinematographer and the composer, thank you, as well as the Wikipedia mirrors and the messages he has left himself on various message boards. It's also worth noting that as he's not working in pop music and most of the reviews noted on his site are from an era where the internet was not as widespread as it is today, Google's effectivenes as a tool of measurement is greatly lessened. Just the same, I refer you to the BBC News article I linked to above. I don't think this guy is a huge name, but as far as modern classical composers go, he's hardly a nobody. -- Captain Disdain 01:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly like to twist my words, captain dstain. I'm not accusing Mr Steadman of lying - he is very quick to threaten legal action, so I'm not going there. I merely questioned whether YOU had found evidence to back up these claims. Obviously, you have not. I find no incriguities in my posts. I haven't stated an opinion on mr Steadman's privacy - merely mentioned it and asked if we should respect it. I have my own theory as to why Mr steadman wants this thread pulled, but that's irrelevant. I don't care whether it is pulled or not - anyone can read that above. As to sob stories about hate mail, my personal belief as to whether any was sent is not something I'd like to mention. I merely pointed out that Mr Steadman has claimed to have received some and this may be one reason why Mr Steadman MAY prefer to see this article shortened. The only reason i keep on posting, is that this seems to be a bit one sided. I am presenting an alternative viewpoint. There's nothing personal. I have no hidden agenda. I repeat: I don't care if this page is deleted or not. If it is kept, I hope the short version is adopted and kept to.Crusading composer 02:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, sure. You're not accusing him of lying, you just ask if I've found evidence to support the claims on the website. Perhaps there's a reason -- other than implying that they are false claims -- to do so, but you'll forgive me if I can't see what it might be. In any case, thank you for your alternative viewpoint. I think that at this point, you can safely consider it to be rather solidly and comprehensively presented. -- Captain Disdain 02:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. glad to be of help.Crusading composer 02:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. This is a very bad faith nomination. As StrangeLove say, not Bach but a significant composer in 21st Centruy classical music scene. vhjhVhjh 06:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also say I am concerned that Crusading composer is so concerned about Steadman and has done so much to adjust his entry and position on Wikipedia and yet claims this is only for a knowledge gleaned from an internet messageboard! This is very, very odd indeed. vhjhVhjh 06:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong keep. What a lot of fuss! I have just spent 10 minutes reading through all that Crusading Composer and Bakewell Tart have said and done re: this article and can only conclude that this is a bad faith nomination. Steadman has had symphonies performed, been reviewed in The Guardian, had a song featured on BBC Radio One, has written for Evelyn Glennie and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and has worked with the likes of Richard Adams on an opera. Amazing how some question his notability given just that let alone the large number of performances and commissions he seems to attract. I do wonder why two new editors are so concerned about Steadman that all their Wikipedia efforts have been to reduce his entry here and, ultimately, to remove him. Robeaston99 08:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per MCB and Robeaston99's arguments. Nomination was clearly made in bad faith from a user involved exclusively with removing information from this article (see [31]). It would also be interesting for an admin to check the IP from where Bakewell Tart and Crusading composer ([32]) have been posted. Both are relatively new to Wikipedia, and both have made edits exclusively to articles pertaining to Robert Steadman such that I'm inclined to think they are likely to be the same person. The usernames, too, seem strange, with one making reference to "composer", and the other to "Bakewell" - the town where Steadman lives. For what it's worth, Steadman's website ([33]) is hosted with BTinternet, so once could possibly guess that the man himself may post from one of BT's numerous IP pools. Anyhow, that's besides the point, since in my opinion Steadman is definitely of sufficient notability to have an article on here. I take issue with the latest (see edit history) changes to the article in trying to drastically reduce the content by those considering him not sufficiently notable. Either he is, and the article contain's as much (factually correct and encyclopedic) info as is contributed, or he's not and it is deleted. As per my post on that talk page, he cannot be deemed notable only enough for a short article. UkPaolo 08:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This is a bit unfair. Just because Bakewell tart and I share an interest in Mr Steadman and have posted only on steadman related articles, it doesn't mean we are the same person. exactly the same thing could be said about vhjh and 86.137.230.153. does that mean that the FOUR of us are the same person in some weird schizophrenic debate? No. I'm going to come down on the side of DELETE today. The reason I have changed my mind is that the major contributors to this article are UNWILLING to allow collaboration. There is no point in saying that the article was created by several users - a simple trawl through their contributions reveals that it is merely one BT use for a week, then another, then another. There is no evidence that an early creator returns later on. No, it's just one IP contributing then dissappearing to be replaced by another. Vhjh and the anonymous editors post on each others pages indicating that there is even a link between vhjh and the anonymous users. A suspicious person might believe that there is only ONE editor. Now this isn't really a probl;em except the person (or persons) who created this site have one agenda - that is to promote Mr Steadman. They do not tolerate any unofficial additions. Edits are quickly reverted and followed with threats that the person will be blocked and calling them vandals. This agenda can be most clearly seen in the attempts of vhjh to keep the article permanently protected. They want the page to be preserved as a shrine to Mr Steadman and to prevent ANY othere edits. They have asked for the power to block/unblock when they wish so that only they can make edits. This is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. It is for this reason that I suggest the article be removed. I don't trust the editors.Crusading composer 09:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, this page has attracted 12 contributors. Six of those (myself included) only appear on edit lists relating to Steadmanism. Three of them are Steadman contributors so I question their NPOV and one appears only on this page (is that called a meat puppet?).Crusading composer 09:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know the problem with anon posts is that with roaming IPs we have no idea whether the poster has posted on lots of other articles or not - so your claim is, at best, irrelevant. I often forget to log in. Perhaps Crusading Composer and Bakewell Tart could tell us where their interest and knowledge of all things Steadman arises? And why you have such a thing about him? There seem to make a lot of assertions about him and yet provide no evidence whilst attacking others for a similar problem. Shameful behaviour, in my opinion and whoever it was who suggested the admin look into these "two" users was correct. Robeaston99 10:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's funny that, you ALWAYS forget to post in on non steadman sites. Pull the other one. I, myself have nothing to hide from admin.Crusading composer 10:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have selective reading skills. I don't have a thing about Mr Steadman. I wanted to make his article more reflective of his ideas and beliefs - information I have gathered by reading his contributions to the TES (yes, he is the same person). My contention isn't with Mr Steadman (who has said that he finds this article embarrassing and would like it deleted), but with the rather fixated steadmanphiles who created this article and are flouting the spirit of Wikipedia by preventing other editors from making changes.Crusading composer 10:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you criticise others for wanting to do things to the page whilst you have gone out of your way to do as much to extinguish the subject from Wikipedia as possible. I really do not se what links to an internet messageboard achieve - shall we link to every contribution Steadman has made? Why just these ones? Is it for you to grind an axe? I suspect so. And, sorry to have to correct you once more, I didn't say I only forget to sign in on Steadman's pages I rarely remember to sign in when I contribute. I am very concerned about the aggressive tone you are taking and the way you feel that, despite being a new editor, you can buly around other far more experienced editors. I think the best thing is for you to take a step back and consider the ethos of collaboration that Wikipedia is based on. Admin do need to look into your behaviour and that of the "other" user intent on doing damage to this article. Robeaston99 11:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robeaston, just how am I being 'aggressive'? I was just surprised that you only ever remember to sign in on Steadman pages - otherwise you always forget. That's a bit odd, why do you think that is? I ask you to retract the allegation of bullying - I haven't bullied anyone. Why do you and the other Steadman contributors sound so alike - 'the admin must look into this'? I think that you'll find that the only 'bullying' and threatening ahs been done by someone claiming to be Mr Steadman himself. The most ironic thing you have said is asking me to consider the ethos of collaboration. Let's go back a few weeks - a couple of people made some harmless edits to this article. They were accused of being vandals. This led to an escalation which has seen this article protected twice. That wasn't me, my edits have been reasonable (I still think it reasonable to remove Mr Steadman's name from 'famous' lists until his notability has been established) but I have still been smeared and threatened. One of my edits HAD been allowed to remain for a week - mainly becuase the previous version didn't make sense, but now the article has been restored to its full glory and I doubt that any further collboration will be allowed - evidenced by the attempts by vjhj to get the article permanently protected with access only allowed to him.Crusading composer 11:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - you have had your say on this matter - over and over. STrange how the only two who have asked for deletion are you and Bakewell Tart. There is something very fishy about your fixation with the subject of this article and it does warrant further investigation. You have yet to explain your interest and knowledge in the subject. And why so agitated? If you are so concerned about proper collaboration you woul see that your attempt to smear Mr. Steadman has failed and, might I suggest, it would be appropriate for you to back down and let others have their say. Robeaston99 11:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, once a page is on Wikipedia there is no reason why it should be limited as long as the content is factual - whilst an odd revision could be made I think the article fits that description in the long version. As, it seems, do several others. It is not up to you to decide a subject only warrants a short article. Robeaston99 11:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For Bakewell_Tart and Crusading Composer

[edit]

Please explain the source of your interest and knowledge in Robert Steadman. That might help the rest of us understand why you seem to be so determined to malign him and reduce a perfectly reasonable article to the smallest possible length. Robeaston99 12:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (I will also put this on the article's discussion page)[reply]

  • I propose that this entire thread is moved to the article's discussion page and taken off the VfD, since it appears that a strong consensus exists for closing the VfD with keep. No credible reaosn has been advanced for deleting the article (even if the subject didn't want it here, which is debatable, there is nothing stopping him coming here himself and fixing whatever it is he allegedly does not like). There is reasonable evidence that this nomination is in bad faith, there is no dispute regarding the notability of the subject, the article clearly does not meet any of the criteria for deletion, and what argument there is seems to centre on issues which are, on the face of it, largely unrelated to the subject. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How very sensible. In the meantime can admin still look into the behaviour of Crusading Composer and Bakewell Tart? Robeaston99 12:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. This would be an excellent move indeed, and thank you for proposing it, Guy. I think it's blatantly obvious that this was a bad faith nomination, and I do think that Composer is being extremely disingenuous here. (I find it a little disappointing that he seems to honestly think that if he just keeps up the pretense and rambles on and on, he'll get his way, despite the fact that the actual votes on the AfD are overwhelmingly on the side of keeping the article and he has been completely unable to dispute Steadman's notability despite the insinuations that Steadman is, in fact, lying on his website.) We have two votes to delete, from Tart and Composer, and twelve to keep, four of which are tagged as "speedy", and frankly, I believe we'd have more keeps if people weren't so put off by the long rants on the AfD. I guess if you dissemble loud enough, it slows things down, at least... -- Captain Disdain 15:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what happens if it is removed from possible deletion? How long before these two can try to do this again? Or just go back to butchering the page? Robeaston99 12:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If they try for deletion again this page will come up as the AfD discussion, which will flag up that it has already been considered and rejected. Personally I think they are wasting their time: if they have genuine issues with Steadman, then document them in a factual and NPOV way and they can stay in. Wikipedia does not require hagoigraphy. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficiently notable for an article, but it's really not a slam-dunk (for example, he does not have an article in the current New Grove, which I like to use as a notability bar for "classical" composers). His record of recent performances and critical reviews, however, clinches it for me. Antandrus (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied Wikibofh 14:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape Combat~Noob to Titan in 1 month!

[edit]

Game cruft Jdavidb (talk) 00:28, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Fog Rugby Football Club

[edit]

Despite being a "first something", eighty members doesn't seem like enough to make this club notable. -Nameneko 23:41, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Terra

[edit]

nn Cypriot property developer Rd232 talk 12:02, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shalin

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a translating dictionary. Denni☯ 01:59, 26 October 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. HappyCamper 02:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shmoopy

[edit]

Unencyclopedic; belongs in pop culture dictionary only BeteNoir 21:41, 26 October 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. Robert 00:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon keller's giant tortoise

[edit]

I cannot find any information about this on the web. The links provided are not related. Written by two anons as their first edits. Karol 09:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I imagine that this page is part serious part joke. The serious part is that that Simon Keller has probally used the example of beleiving that there is a giant tortorise that is the world/is god in orrder to show, reductio ad absurdum stylely, what he beleives to be the sillyness of Relativism. The silly part is presenting the article as if he really beleives it/ment it to be taken seriously. The article could be improved to take out the silly part and leave only the serious, however Simon Kellers use of silly examples to refute relativism is not exactly orriginal or notable as a particular example and none or his reasurch papersappear to be about it.--JK the unwise 09:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete Tortism is a serious example used by Keller on several occasions. Applying the Giant Tortoise to different aspects of philosophy is a practical way of illustrating that philosophy, as its principles also cover the desire and objective list theories, as well as Utilitarianism. It can be adapted to nearly any philosophical theory.--JetpackrocketbabyII 04:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An understandable sentiment, considering that created the page. Dxco 10:50, 26 October 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 17:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slam pong

[edit]

Non notable drinking game. From the same people that brought you so much Dartmouth College trivia... DJ Clayworth 19:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep This article is informative, not a personal hype or advertisement, and does not conflict with other potential uses of the term "slam pong". Additionally, the information for this article was specifically requested in the beer pong article. kharker 19:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User has 5 edits, made this entry under 67.79.3.2 Karmafist 20:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Informative, includes extensive description/rules, and NPOV. Why delete it? -- we have articles/stubs on most card games and variants thereof... Womble 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cleanup - the article could use help; it does have a case of WP:NOR, but if pruned to reflect information shared among multiple online refs, I think it would be acceptable. Womble 22:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please keep your comments on-topic and factual:
      • "From the same people that brought you so much Dartmouth College trivia..." - combative; attacking the people editing the topic, not the topic itself.
      • "College kids getting drunk and making a pseudosport out of it happens all the time." - combative; makes assumptions instead of using facts. Should topics on drunkeness not be included in Wikipedia? Or beer pong ?
      • "Perhaps when they sober up they'll realise that drinking games are not, in fact, the acme of hilarity which they seem at the time." -- complete opinion; personal attack on author(s).
  • Delete vanity, original research CDC (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Cut out the original research, and this will be a perfectly fine article. Many of the delete comments are trying to promote their own POV about drinking games, rather than providing NPOV reasons for deletion. — λ 15:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to delete this one, then what about I never and all of the other drinking games? That article mentions a specific sorority by name, even though *I've* never heard of them in reference to that game. Please give an answer. Womble 18:53, 29 October 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. — brighterorange (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solidred

[edit]

Anon IP contributor, cleaned up his other stuff. -- Asparagus 01:09, 26 October 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 to Mansonite. --Celestianpower háblame 11:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spooky Kid

[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 01:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to the superior Mall_Goth article as per merge suggestion. Jumping the gun a bit but the article was terrible and had been suggested for merger for a year.--Pypex 18:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add this one, posting now. ComCat 00:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mansonite --keepsleeping say what 23:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a comment below about lack of support for deletion:
  1. The first sentence of the article calls it "a very recent term which is not yet widespread". Cf. neologism.
  2. The entire article is essentially a duplicate of both Mansonite and Mall Goth, and any two of those articles can be merged and redirected into the other, or all three merged and redirected with Goth.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 DeleteHappyCamper 02:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Eastham

[edit]

Obvious joke or vanity entry. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:34, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Mackinnon

[edit]

Political ad for non-notable posistion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would not describe that as a "bias"; they have links because they have articles, based on being notable for either holding public office or for some other reason, not for being the "incumbent candidate". If any challenger was individually worthy of an article for some reason, he/she would have a link as well. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to assure some some sort of mythical concept of "fairness" in which electoral candidates get articles. MCB 00:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't apply for historical elections, but for current ones Wikipedia is a source of instant information for current elections. Those who control this information do influence readers. Info on one candidate, but not another may be "Systemic bias" (maybe that is the wrong term). Consider this idea that balances Wikipedia policy (on individual articles) while creating an opportunity to communicate more balanced information: Green Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election --maclean25 03:18, 28 October 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 move and redirect. Moved to Canadian Anti-Smoking Campaign. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid.ca

[edit]

Delete. Appears to be spam (albeit, probably unintentionally...) VileRage (Talk|Cont) 08:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*I don't know if it's appropriate for me to vote, but Delete seems the best option to me. --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 06:36, 29 October 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, 20 keep votes, 7 delete votes. — JIP | Talk 07:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Middle School

[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:29, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tglo

[edit]

Non-notable company, website sstill "under construction" does not seem to be accepting customers yet. This was tagged for speedy delte, but IMI does not fall under any of the WP:CSD. However, I think it should be deleted. DES (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This entry should not be deleted as tglo is a public company and is launched. Due to Hurricane Wilma hitting Fort Lauderdale, Florida the Corporate HQ of tglo, we will be back online asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.92.152 (talk • contribs)
  • Do you know if tglo fits any of the criteria listed at WP:CORP? What is the stock ticker symbol for the public company? Do you have any stats on how many customers tglo has? Do you have links to any other comparitive ranking that would make tglo stick out from other VoIP startup companies? --Interiot 20:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stock ticker symbol is (tglo), tglo has 4.8 million downloads of their proprietary glophone software. You can view their Corporate profile/press at TheGlobe.com.
  • Comment: are "tglo" and TheGlobe the same company? The stock symbol is TGLO, but the company appears to do business as TheGlobe.com with a principal product called GloPhone, which is a software product for PCs. That is a public company, and has (claimed) 4.8 million customers per their web site. The links in the article, however, are to www.tglo.com, which is just an "under construction" placeholder, and to www.voip-solution.ca, which is a vendor of some VoIP hardware adapter. This is all very curious. If they are the same company, the article should be moved to TheGlobe, which would appear to be notable, pending verification of the 4.8 million customer figure. If not, then this "tglo" is pretty much shown to be nn. MCB 23:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The company just changed its name to "tglo" on Oct 7. If you look at Tglovoip's contributions, I think it's clear that the intent was to advertise the VoIP portion of the business. And it's clear that the article was vanity/autobiographical/spam. But if there is notable data somewhere here, renaming/reworking the article might be okay. --Interiot 01:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not here to spam as I have good intentions to make clear who tglo is and add proper article content to this wiki. www.tglo.com is down temp., may be due to Hurricane Wilma. TheGlobe.com is GloPhone, VoiceGlo, tglo, Voip-Solution.ca is an authorized reseller. tglo is the stock symbol and TheGlobe.com is the Corp HQ. I hope this helps.
        • www.tglo.com is back up online, can someone let me know what steps I need to do to edit this article? Do I need to move this to TheGlobe? Thanks
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 wasDeleteHappyCamper 02:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Anthem of Death

[edit]

Delete: Possible hoax. All references I can find about the band are circular mirrors of Wikipedia, back to here. Claims of discography can not be verified. Allmusic.com doesn't seem to know they exist. Appears to violate WP:MUSIC. This article was also deleted from the German Wikipedia as a fake (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#The_Anthem_of_Death)--Durin 18:17, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Braden Kirkey

[edit]

This article reads like the vanity page of someone who has read the rule book. The subject of the article is a 17-year old who has many claims to notability; but I can substantiate none. (I admit I ignored his school prizes). Non-notable vanity.

Note: Same person has posted another article Kim Jong Il Fan Club which is also up for deletion. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:12, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Connection Theme

[edit]

Completely non-notable jam band

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (for obvious reasons}. -Doc (?) 22:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The First Four

[edit]

nonsense vanity page Alhutch 20:27, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 02:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The movie addict

[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank at all, no media attention asserted, and their forum has all of four registered users. Its creator was deleted in this afd debate. —Cryptic (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Website features more than "three" reviews. In fact I have written over 1600, it's just that the site is in the process of construction right now. Another index of reviews is at rottentomatoes.com/author-6769.

Media assertation: The Movie Addict is the new domain of its previous incarnation, wiredonmovies.com, which had over 1,000,000 visitors in a year, including Meg Ryan and Roger Ebert.

Alexa rank: Don't know why it doesn't have one. But wiredonmovies.com does, and it's the same site, just under a different domain.

And finally, the Monroe Mann debate was a joke - it doesn't mean everything I submit is automatically erroneous. You fail the mention all the other articles I have worked on that AREN'T in any way, shape or form "false." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.173.172.116 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 27 October 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.

The result of the debate was Delete HappyCamper 01:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thread Crapping

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. — JIP | Talk 07:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger (beer)

[edit]

Nonsense article Deskana 17:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it's brewed by Asia-Pacific Breweries that's based right here in Singapore. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 07:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: In fact, move to Tiger Beer if needed. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 12:41, 27 October 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 HappyCamper 01:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Brady

[edit]

Appears to be vanity page. While I hope that he has a great future in filmaking, at the moment he is certainly not-notable. Delete --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NN, D. ComCat 00:45, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 01:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Triangular cancers

[edit]

Hoax. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a hoax. Delete without voting. --213.138.128.13 08:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Send to BJAODN. TheMadBaron 20:50, 27 October 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 HappyCamper 01:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truff-100

[edit]

Appears to be advertising to non-notable website 81.102.162.34 21:48, 26 October 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. — JIP | Talk 07:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tunc Erem

[edit]

Fails the average professor test, likely vanity article.

Only if you're dyslexic! :-) MCB 23:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - but the idea of a mere Cnut is unfathomable!  BD2412 talk 07:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rector of a university is notable. See University's article on him. There's a link directly to this page from the university's main page (an indicator of high status). Fg2 03:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. -- DS1953 talk 06:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. He is the rector (or president) of a major turkish university and well-known in Turkish higher education. He has also been a visiting prof. in the US. However, his first name should be correctly represented as Tunç in accordance with the Turkish alphabet. kingsbury 12.22, 28 Oct.2005
  • Keep. University presidents are inherently notable.  BD2412 talk 07:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. University presidents merit an 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 result of the debate was Delete HappyCamper 01:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twitchy

[edit]

Non-notable dog, and ugly judging from the picture.

  • This is the dog they are making that movie about at Warner Bros Movie World. He got kidnapped for two months as a puppy by one of Carl Williamns henchemen. My friend went to a casting call to play one of the thugs that kidnapped him. No luck. but the saga has been splashed across the papers all year. He is twitchy the 'mafia' dog. I definately agree it is a really ugly mutt, but the most notable dog in australia.
  • I'd heard rumours about the movie thing but nothing concrete. I'm trying to work out due to copyright and stuff if I can put some of the newspaper articles up on the page about Twitchy. I guess it may be a local story for Australia but where does Wiki draw the line? Loads of local stuff from around the world in other parts of Wiki. Blargon 01:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry about the quality of the picture. I got it emailed to my by the owner for my uni assignment on the story. There are better pictures in the newspaper of it freaking out when taken to the magistrates court by they are copyrighted by News ltd. Blargon 01:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn, that's an ugly dog. But that doesn't make him notable enough for an article. I set the bar pretty high for dogs, and Twitchy (I'd be twitchy too if I looked like him) doesn't make the cut. Denni☯ 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys are judging this animal on its noteworthiness based on its looks. How shallow? Not a single person that has said NN has considered the dog for what it is or may be but used its looks. I would imagine that Wikipedia honoured the notable, not just the pretty. If a movie is being made about this dogs life, and its struggle is a continuing story in the news I would think that makes it Noteable. Jannix☯ 05:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's got a point. Not about him being notable (for every movie that's made, there's ten thousand that you never see, and one hundred thousand that no one ever sees, because it never gets finished) but about y'all short changing the dog for its looks. You should be ashamed of yourselves! Dogs have feelings too! See Dog intelligence.  freshgavin TALK   00:03, 1 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 Already speedily deleted. Simply closing AfD HappyCamper 01:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual ecommerce

[edit]

Blatant advertisement.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 HappyCamper 01:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voipex

[edit]

Apparently non-notable company. Tagged as a speedy delete, but IMO does not qualify. Delete unless notability clearly established. DES (talk) 17:15, 26 October 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 NO CONSENSUS. There are 6 votes to keep and 13 votes to merge. — JIP | Talk 07:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walhalla Cricket Grounds

[edit]
  • Merge with Walhalla (Victoria). The Walhalla article has been recently greatly expanded... Would be much better suited to being in the Landmarks sectino toward the bottom of the article. It should also be Ground without the 's'!!! AaronRichard 30 October 2005.

More of same, no google hits. -- Asparagus 01:08, 26 October 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 HappyCamper 01:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Weirdo Jace" McLain

[edit]

Non-notable singer for a non-notable band. Person, band, and album all come up with zilch. You can call me Al 16:16, 26 October 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. HappyCamper 01:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia raid

[edit]

It's a dictionary definition of a neologism. - Squibix 17:20, 26 October 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 deleted by Jcw69. --Celestianpower háblame 11:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.forumfire.com

[edit]

Non-notable recently founded web forum.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. HappyCamper 01:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zbogom oružje

[edit]

Article in Croatian or transliterated Serbian, has been on WP:PNT since 11 October. Physchim62 18:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

I have no idea which language this is, sorry. --JoanneB 11:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4 years, sweat and blood,
was my lord fighting for the fatherland,
all is done, all is done,
farewell, farewell to arms
Could it be a joke? or a famous quote? either way, I don't think I can make an article out of it. Perhaps someone else would have suggestions - Introvert talk 06:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a poem, or the lyrics to a song. Perhaps we should transwiki it to hr:, sr: or sh: for advice. Aecis 11:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the native croatian speaker: Should be deleted, as this is original work of dubious quality (to not say of zero quality). User:SpeedyGonsales 20:56, 26 October 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_26&oldid=1234127340"