< November 25 November 27 >

Purge server cache

November 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 no consensus to delete; editorial decision taken to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 09:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Detroit People Mover stations

[edit]

I don't know what the purpose of this article is, given that the same material is also found at the Detroit People Mover article. Therefore, I believe this article redundant. Pentawing 20:49, 26 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for a Humanistic Euro British Canada

[edit]

Poorly-written profile of a racist nut group based off of a Tripod website (britishcanada.tripod.com). Firebug 01:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fellow wikipedians, to delete an entry that explains what has been currently making headline in SW Ontario on the basis that it's a "tempest in a teapot" simply shows your dismissal of things of interest to Ontarians as trivial. Michael Chessman is definitely NOT a fictitious individual. Being one of East Indian heritage growing up in several British Commonwealth countries, his identifying with Anglo-centric racial and cultural prejudice could be a reaction to, or internalization/reproduction of the discrimination he has received. This coalition could also well be Chessman's ingenious parody of the all too common conservative cultural norm of SW Ontario. However, the Coalition is officially included within a list of several minor federal political parties. For no reason is it justified to delete a Wikipedia entry on even a minor mock Canadian political party like the Rhinoceros Party, likewise this one. Those who vote to delete this article are simply too Americanocentric to care about Canada, or are too patriotically Canadian to admit to anything that contradicts the official image of Canada as cosmopolitan, multicultural, liberal and progressive. First of all, lose your biases, and then judge your fellow wikipedians. Again, wikipedia is no place for people who destroy articles without well informed deliberation. Bestlyriccollection

[2]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fanson

[edit]

Neologism, and not a particularly innovative one. Perhaps merge with Hanson? --202.156.6.54 00:18, 26 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 Merge. I am so not into Pokémon I'm having a hard time understanding all of this, but it seems clear that the consensus is to merge all of the glitch articles ('M, Missingno. and 3trainerpoké, plus any others that I may not be aware of) into a single new article called something like Glitch Pokémon. All the individual article names should remain as redirects to that new article. I'll leave it to User:A Man In Black to do the actual merging, and just monitor the situation to make sure it happens, since I don't understand the subject well enough to perform the merge myself. --RoySmith 01:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'M

[edit]

A mere glitch in the form of only 2 characters does not merit it's own article!

The above two points were made by the same author. --JB Adder | Talk 05:12, 28 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arcane design group

[edit]

Advertising spam for a non-notable web design group. Delete. See the version before I edited it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 00:25:30Z

Note that the AfD notice was removed, and then the article was expanded. I initially just reverted the article, but I have now taken it back to the expanded version and just restored the notice. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 01:37:13Z

Delete it already.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elix3r (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI then DELETE. If anybody suggests transwiki, we might as well do it. -Splashtalk 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edumarketing

[edit]

Neologism not in widespread use. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 00:36:49Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of international travel guides and web sites

[edit]

Delete article which is almost entirely a list of external spamlinks. Mindmatrix 00:38, 26 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foxtail comics

[edit]

Very unnoteworthy webcomic. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 00:53:54Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 --RoySmith 01:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tallywhacker

[edit]

A slang dicdef. --218.212.99.216 00:54, 26 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 NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shanna Compton

[edit]

I don't think one obscure publication of poems last month constitutes fame. --JHMM13 01:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Six Google scholar results as well see [5]. Capitalistroadster 01:31, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowflakes.exe

[edit]

Hoax article, does not provide references and makes claims like 'no antivirus program can find it', an immediate red flag. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect into College of Saint Elizabeth --RoySmith 01:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzy the Eagle

[edit]

Non-notable Nv8200p talk 02:03, 26 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: Speedily deleted by Fredrik. - Mike Rosoft 09:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 64/Gallery

[edit]

Wikipedia is not an image gallery. These are all fair-use images, being used without commentary. Most of them are already in Super Mario 64 (which has a dozen images as it is), so this gallery isn't even needed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. Was created because Super Mario 64 was (and remains) overloaded with images used for decorative rather than informative purposes, but the better solution is to delete the redundant images outright. Fredrik | tc 02:23, 26 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) 23:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Australian sentiment

[edit]

No substantiative evidence that such a sentiment actually exists Jackk 02:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Metallica --RoySmith 02:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Grant

[edit]

non-notable Nv8200p talk 02:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom (Notorious4life 02:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result of the debate was 'Speedy delete' . Owen× ☎ 23:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti golomitism

[edit]

Hoax. Zero google hits. Perhaps this could be speedy as a patent nonsense? --202.156.6.54 02:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Zoe as copyvio. --GraemeL (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse merz

[edit]

found on CSD. Does assert notability, in a vane way (rather than copyvio of http://www.cgst.com/jesse.htm). Delete as vanity Henrygb 02:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as a copyvio from http://www.cgst.com/jesse.htm User:Zoe|(talk) 06:12, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 23:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Trosh

[edit]

The lead singer in a band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, as far as I can tell. Joyous | Talk 02:53, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 23:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Landore the game

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This game is not finished or released. Joyous | Talk 03:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Can't copyright an idea anyway. Better get that patent in the 365 days though. Peyna 06:17, 27 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 (no consensus). As vote count goes, we have something like 34 delete/23 keep. The argument has been over two different terms used in the title, "modern" and "dictator". Now, if "modern" is a concern, the page can be easily given an objective standard (dictators who ruled after 1900 for example). So it is the use of the term "dictator" that has caused trouble.

The argument for deletion here is that the title is inherently POV. Unlike list of Roman dictators, where "dictator" was a real official office, the term "modern day dictator" is not. It is a subjective term, and some people have called people such as George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin dictators. Some have said that Saddam Hussein was not a dictator because he was reelected in referendums where he got 90-100% of the vote. Who goes into such a list, who does not? Presidents like Robert Mugabe (elected and reelected in disputed elections) are certainly controversial.

The argument for "keep" is that the term is well defined. There is some merit to this, the term dictator certainly has a definition in all dictionaries. (Then again one might argue that "evil" has a clear definition, and that list of evil people will be difficult to work.) Things are not quite as severe with the term dictator since there are some standards which can be applied. Was the president elected in an election? Is there a peaceful mechanism for removing the president? Is there an opposition to the president which can operate without fear of persecution?

Personally, I am more convinced by the concerns of the "delete" voters here, but the "keep" side has enough merit to their arguments to not ignore the usual guideline of a two-thirds majority requirement for deletion. On this AFD discussion there is no consensus and, consequently, the article will not be deleted.

The article is in need of major work however, some of the presidents linked up on this page are not described as "dictators" in their articles, most likely because of POV concerns. Most importantly, some sort of definition for what will make a president a dictator which should be added to this list is needed. I am going to request comment on this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD threads do not have to be closed on a rigid deadline. Many stay up for much longer. I don't see why we can wait more time to allow a clearer consensus to be established, so that we don't have to deal with the prospect of a minority of users getting away with voting NPOV and other concepts away based on a technicality. As of now the deletes are at 60% instead of the needed 67% percent at the end of five days-- an arbitary little difference that does not offer much of a compelling reason to keep the article. 172 14:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern day dictators

[edit]

I'm not ready to declare a consensus yet, but I did go through and attempt to weed out people's stated opinions from all the yelling and screaming. Basicly, I ignored everything except for things that looked like variations on Keep and Delete, and teased them out into a list. Everything was put into one of those two bins (i.e. if you added Weak or Strong or anything like that, it got lost to make it easier to process). I ended up with the list below (sorted in alphabetical order). If you expressed an opinion, please double-check the list below to make sure I haven't lost anybody, or accidentally counted somebody in the wrong group. --RoySmith 03:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I saw no evidence of sockpuppetry or anything else which would lead me to discount any opinions expressed --RoySmith 03:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring down, Roysmith counted roughly 31 deletes to 21 keeps, which means there's not going to be a consensus very soon. Kim Bruning 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a spin-off of list of dictators, which has been redirected to dictator for nearly three years because, for reasons stated over and over again on Talk:List of dictators, compiling such a list is an inherent violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The spin-off was created in order to avoid engaging in the long series of problems associated with the creation of such a page presented by a variety of editors on the original page over the course of several years. The consensus against the creation of such lists was further cemented with the deletion of similar lists found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators and Category:Totalitarian dictators

Even if you could have an objective definition (and I'm not sure you can), it would still be subjective as to who met the definition. To take my staw-man List of non-existent deities: we could agree an objective criteria ('supposed gods that don't actually exist'), and we might mostly agree on certain examples that could be included (Zeus, Bacchus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster), so should we have such a list? Your arguement would seem to say 'yes', and let's discuss Allah and Jehovah on the talk page. I say such lists infringe NPOV.--Doc ask? 19:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, your comparison is not valid because while it is true that both "dictators" and "list of Gods that don't exist" have objective definitions, one is defined in every dictionary, encyclopedia, is used here 27,700 times, is used by historians without controversy many many times. The other one (geuss which) was made up today by a Doc and is in any case unpopulatable since you can never prove non-existence. I'm sure you think of a better fatuous comparison than this one. You see what you are looking for is not only a objective definition, but also a term widely accepted and discussed even though it may seem pejorative - maybe a list like this one or this one?
Comment: Well, 172, I’ll give you high marks for good cheer. Not for logic or sincerity, though, because the holes in your thinking are so great, that this discussion could join the Titanic at any minute. While you cling to the sides of the sinking ship, refusing the lifeline I’ve repeatedly thrown you, screaming Captain oh Captain, I’ve been busy trying to develop a list of dictators not constructed on a categorical scheme predicating relevant questions on which historians often disagree. Unlike you, I'm interested in information dissemination for the benefit of wikipedians and the greater world, rather than supression. As instructed, I have avoided historians altogether. This facilitated my task given that historians spend most of their time: (i) arguing in a language incomprehensible for those not ordained in their sacred order, such as yourself ; (ii) plagiarizing other historians (you fully know how much professional historians hate to sully themselves in dingy little archives); (iii) trying to pick-up their students or back stab other historians as they desperately claw their way to tenure.
Considering my area of expertise, I have long been fascinated with the innumerable similarities between Supermodels and Dictators (obsession with self image, unbridled ego, numerous flunkies at their beck and call, many fans and detractors, rich through industry/national dominance, media fascination/manipulation, etc. etc, etc.). Since you recognize the validity of List of supermodels, based on their affiliation with the huge industry that has manufactured the very notion of "supermodel"- a definition, I would note, that ignores their zeitgeist and degrades their very real achievements- and deny that List of supermodels is culturally and historically specific to our own society, I have applied your thinking and engaged the classification process from the standpoint of reporting, not original research.
I have chosen not to focus my data gathering methodology on sources strongly affiliated with the Dictator industry, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the OHCHR, etc, since their stuff is all pretty boring, and way over the heads of most Supermodels and Dictators. Instead, I have used sources that are known to appeal to both Supermodels and Dictators, such as Parade Magazine, which proudly publishes a List of The World's 10 Worst Dictators [[8]], Wave Magazine, which gives us The World’s Weirdest Dictators, [[9]], and the numerous polls carried out by www.bestandworst.com, such as Who Is the Sexiest Dictator?. The answer, of course, being Hitler [[10]]. I have cross checked validity with mentions on the Simpsons, Forbes magazine’s list of the 400 richest people (every good dictator needs to hit this list at least once) [[11]], Amazon book rank (Dictators, like historians, check this every day), and sales at the Dictators of the Twentieth Century Store- now featuring Hitler [[12]].
If you attempt to challenge these sources, I would submit that your historian school has failed in its duties to inform you that dictators, like supermodels, have long been concerned about where they fit in the scheme of things, and frequently consult these types of lists as proof that they are correctly recognized for their achievements. I also needn't remind you that these are all perfectly valid sources for Wikipedia editors reporters. Since dictators already have lists and a store, shouldn't we out of a concept of fairness, give them a list, like we have done for Supermodels and Skyscrapers? Or does not our List of supermodels actually represent a flagrant application of our historical and cultural specificities, as you have so strongly denied?. If you find the time, I would very much appreciate your professional historian point of view on these issues. -- JJay 23:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's Parade Magazine, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the blurring between history and entertainment. I recommend Eric Foner's collection of essays in his Who Owns History?, which offers a critical look at histories offered to the mass public for entertainment. Historians get a lot of negative feedback from the public from so many different directions; Foner's defense, though, is pretty effective. At any rate, I admit, if an arbitratary line is going to be drawn, drawing one rendering the work of professional historians (here in the U.S. esp. members of the American Historical Association) hegemonic in the production of content on history in encyclopedias is one I feel comfortable drawing. 172 00:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for your response 172 and the suggestion regarding Eric Foner. As he is apparently a tenured historian at an elite institution, and also a political figure of some renown, I doubt I would be qualified to examine his essays or interpret his criticism. And while I struggle to understand your remarks, I will interpret them as a concession that a Modern Dictator List is acceptable given its coverage by the popular press. I thank you warmly and am also frequently both uncomfortable and comfortable as logic is frequently discomforting. -- JJay 01:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Parade lists can be reproduced in Parade-magazine related articles. But to think of them as a possible main source for a list of dictators on Wikipedia just serves to lower the standards of NPOV and sources used in our articles on history and politics. If Parade is the best source with which we can work on list of dictators, Wikipedia is better off not even bothering with the attempt to write the list. John Kenney said it best earlier: "This list is going to be inherently problematic, and it's best not to try." 172 02:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, I had you rattled, but am happy you have regained your comfort level. Since you have precluded every other source, sagacious 172, I will use the sources you allow. It will be my main source, along with the others I cited. Will seek comparable lists from other countries to give it some international flavour. Hopefully, Dictator lists are published in countries like North Korea. Wouldn't that be gleeful. See Blender Magazine's 50 Worst Songs Ever! for what I have in mind. If we can do it for songs, we can do it for dictators, pardon my French. I might even cite Eric Foner, unless the revolution happens first. -- JJay 02:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself accept that there are some dictators - why can they not be collated in a list? That is the crucial question you must answer here. Yours, jucifer 23:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there have been dicators. However, that point is moot. Original research is not necessarily wrong. It is not necessarily POV. Original research is original research because of the process by which classifications are made and information is determined, not because of the outcomes. For the purposes of Wikipedia editors, on what basis can the claim that Jiang Zemin was not a dictator be stated in Wikipedia? It cannot be on the basis of anything that you or I can state on Wikipedia, no matter how valid the kinds of inductive inferences that we make are on their own merits. In order not to be original research, the answer would have to be 'another reference source has generated the same kind of list, and it doesn't have Jiang on it.' If another sourcebook or encyclopedia that does not have a policy against original research (as it is professionally written by recognized experts in their respective fields) carried out the kind of research project that you are now attempted and published its own 'list of dictators,' only then would we be able to reproduce their research and avoid the problem of NOR inherent in generating this list, with the source being duly noted in the references section of the article. In other words, Wikipeidia editors can report the findings of research projects conducted by professionals and published outside Wikipedia; but they can not engage in their own research projects on Wikipedia, even if they can manage to reach some painfully obvious correct conclusions (e.g., Stalin was a dictator). 172 00:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have the UN or Amnesty ever declared someone to be a dictator? --Doc ask? 00:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is on the mark in figuring out the way to draft this article with reference to WP:NOR. I would agree with his conclusion, but stuff like UN resolutions or Amnesty classifications are no where to be found. The term is just used loosely by those who intend for it to be pejorative, or who do not mind the pejorative implications of the usage. As a historian dealing with these kinds of matters for decades, I am drawing a blank when it comes to trying to think of someone or some group in contrast applying the term "dictator" systematically and with some rigor. I would be astonished if I were to find out that I'd overlooked such work for so long. 172 00:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD vote shouldn't be on the worth of a page as it exists right now, but on whether there could ever be an encyclopedic article with the topic in the title. I'm not at all endorsing the quality of the page as of the current edit, but rather that it has the potential of being a good article. I dunno exactly what evidence for a particular claim would be found for any given inclusion, but I can see sources might make statements... not necessarily using the word "dictator", but indicating a leader has personal legislative authority. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point and I understand where you are coming from. I respect your position. Based on your criterion for voting, I see an argument to be made for keeping but redirecting until we find a professionally published list drafted systematically with some rigor, as I keep mentioning. I suppose that my orientation on Wikipedia is more "deletionist" in that I consider not only whether there could ever be an encyclopedic article with such a title but also community-related concerns, i.e. the likelihood that things will not work out as they should on Wikipedia. Based on my own stance regarding AfDs, my position is delete until such a source is found, but recreate the article when and if such a source is found. 172 03:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the redirecting thing. Someone else's "professionally published" list has no reason to be any better, nor any more or less POV, than one WP creates collectively. We editors are just as good as whoever Encyclopedia Brittianica might hire, or that Amnesty International might create (at least in the long run). I tend to take whatever exists as a starting point (assuming you can ineed imagine a possible good article under the title): the first thing is to start annotating names with information on the sense in which they are "dictators", and who says this of them. It's not even necessarily a pejorative to include names: "benign dictators" are discussed in the dictator article... you or I might not endorse the "benign" part, but some supporters of a given political leader might. Obviously, sources who make claims should be a bit reputable: I'm not inclined to list someone because the John Birch Society called them a dictator. But if a reputable political scientist described a political figure as being a dictator (or something else close to the definition), that's citable, and enough to include the name, with such annotation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:172 could you plese respond to the cenrtal question I posed above and also respond to JayJ's critique of your "original" take on WP:NOR on which you justify this nomination.jucifer 01:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I glad you have answered my question. I asked you that since You yourself accept that there are some dictators - why can they not be collated in a list? You replied that because the process of reaching the conclusion was the original research; and the findings of original research are kept out of Wikipedia not because they are necessarily wrong or POV but rahter because the process of original research is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. The important thing you have said has thrown your simply ludicrous intepretation of WP:NOR into sharp relief. I'm glad you aresuddendly being straightforward. You are arguing that we cannot have a list of dictators because WP:NOR precludes us from describing anyone as a dictator. Since you are well aware, that you can't argue for the deletion of this list completely on the grounds of WP:NPOV (since some dictators are universally held to be so). You are asking poeple to accept that Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin and others, cannot be described as dictators - because doing so would constitute original research.

It's fine, of course, for Stirling Newberry to vote "delete". But he has been editing the page itself in ways that seem basically intended to "make it bad enough it deserves deletions". That's a really dishonest approach. Specifically, I believe the list could be worth keeping if names were annotated to provide good context for their inclusion. But every time I try to annotate a name, Stirling Newberry either deletes the name altogether or removes the annotation, hence assuring no motion towards "worth keeping". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can longer keep debating here as I am going on vacation for a few days. I have no doubt that when I return User:172 will have had this list will deleted since he will continue his spamming campaign - I certainly hope not. If it is this will mean a precedent for 172's willful manipulation of the WP:NOR policy to suit his own prejudices. It will also be an extreme POV action as it will be an endorsement of ultra-relativism as NPOV. Any thinking person reading this list will understand the his grounds for deletion have been refuted.
I say this regretfully, but his behaviour has been - "eccentric" - let us say. He has deleted a large number of comments on the talk page of List of dictators without justification and providing a misleading edit summary. He has accused me of bad faith, and refused to withdraw. He has spammed around 25 users with no prior interest in this page - often complimenting them and then asking for them to vote; portraying me as some kind of "barbarian" trying to defy a "consensus" about his risible adaption of WP:NOR. But not only did he spam profusely, he also vainly tried to hide the fact that he was doing this by instead of going to the "add comment" tab and adding a comment (see how that works?), he went out of his way to scroll to the bottom of every users talk page - open up the last comment and add a new header. You see, when you do that you don't have a long list of "user contributions" saying "Please vote", since the header you edited was on some random subject. He has deleted someone else's comment on a the List of dictators talk page and mislabeled the edit, and failed to replace it despite requests. When the1physicist politely questioned him on his general take on NOR on his own talk page recently - not only did he delete the comment (see here) but he falsified the "edit summary". When the1physicist questioned about this he again deleted the comment (see here). He is merely repeating a pattern of behavour that ultimatly lead to him joining the select club of "former administrators".

jucifer 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

jucifer's comments are both unfair and unworthy. 172 did not spam me, for example, he sought my opinion, as he knows I am a long time contributor to WP and someone from an academic background who applies NPOV standards rigidly. He also knows that I am independent-minded and will not simply vote a particular way because it would suit him. If I thought he was wrong and you were right I would have voted to keep. Users regularly inform me of debates if it is in a topic they think is in my area of expertise because I will offer my analysis, not theirs. I have never considered, and never will consider, being contacted by someone I know, or someone who is participating in a debate on an topic of interest to me, to inform me about a debate on a topic I have already discussed before (even if not in that instance) as spamming.

The fact is that I cannot find any justification for a list that is based solely on subjective criteria with no objective verification added. Nor can I, as a political scientist and historian, stand over a list that fails to meet the standard academic requirement of context.

Your attack on 172 was grossly unfair and undermined the credibility which I presumed you brought to the debate. I thought we were debating the issue of this page's existence, not your personal annoyance at 172. FearÉIREANN 01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary User:172, you have obfuscated endlessly, refused compromise and refused to answer questions. As if to prove this point beyond doubt, you again falsify the nature of the actions. This is the post on your talk page you describe as "accusations":

"Hello, there. I was reading through the AFD on List of Dictators, and I noticed your definition of Original Research seems a bit flawed. You claim the process of determining who is a dictator is original research. That seems like quite a stretch. You have to keep in mind the *historical* origins of NOR. It was originally developed because people were posting crackpot physics theories on wikipedia. NOR has since been expanded beyond physics theories, but in general, simple classification is NOT original research. In the case of classifying dictators, you would be using pre-existing material in your decision making process (relevant quotes, polls, media coverage, etc), hence it is not original research. Also, you REALLY need to archive your talk page.the1physicist 20:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

And as is obvious I not only am not trying to change the subject, but after I detail you patern of malpractice, I return to the main issue and again refute your justification for deleting this page, age again (as you did to the1physicist I note no explaination of your policy. jucifer 02:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is of absolutely no relevance to this debate. We are discussing whether to delete List of modern day dictators, not users on Wikipedia. Take your complaints about individual voters elsewhere. FearÉIREANN 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My page reflects my views. Articles don't represent my views but NPOV (which why though I think Bush is a bozo I still revert attacks on him!). As to presidential gaffes (obviously you are sore that you didn't get your way there) either a person said something and it was regarded as a gaffe in public reaction, or they didn't. It boils down to facts. Whether someone is a dictator or not cannot be measured by something they said, but involves using subjective criteria on what you think of them. It is fundamentally different. FearÉIREANN 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Pragmatic observation - the list is loaded with errors - often listing the date of legitimate election of people who later became dictators, people wh are not dictators within any meaning of the term, confusing dicators with the unelected heads of oligarchies - who are not dictators because they can't rule by decree and so on. The list, even on its own terms is a morass of factually inaccurate assertions. Stirling Newberry 02:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


One of the difficulties is that only those interested in lists will bother to maintain these lists. This is centralised and unwiki. If we must have this thing, it would be better to use a Category approach, which would ensure that (a) everyone interested in person X sees that X is declared to be a Dictator (b) discussion about this takes place where it should, on the talk page of the article about person X. Rd232 talk 14:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, both over categories and ..if we must... See also the vote on the Category Totalitarian dictators Wizzy…☎ 14:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is daft, look at these precedents: "Category:Terrorists by nationality" and List of terrorists which have been around for years. Or List of films that have been considered the worst ever, or List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position or List of movie clichés by genre, and to be honest I can't see a material deifference between List of White supremacists and this one here. This article is top notch by comparison, much clearer definitions, this is just twisted apologia. Juicifer (I can't sign in here.)
White supremacists are proud of being called so, therefore the list is verifiable. 69 is silly but well-defined. "worst ever" is a documented thing. "Terrorist" is a militant acting deliberately against civilians, a clear cut def, regardless he is "liberator" or mentally ill. All these lists are sound, and why "dictator" is "top notch" compared to them beats me. mikka (t) 19:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no 15th century enries. There are no 16th century entries. There are no 17th century entries. There are no 18th century entries. There are 5 19th century entries. All the rest are 20/21st century. (Just for the record User:172). Change the to name to "List of dictators (modern usage)" or even better just "List of dictators" with a sub-heading type redirect to Roman dictators if you like.
  • As you yourself conceded there are some people at least who can be described as dictators without violating NPOV or WP:V. You further concede above that (even with you strange take on NOR) there are some people at least who can be described as dictators without violating NOR. You dual grounds for deleting this article have evaporated - you yourself concede that NPOV NOR and WP:V are no impediment to making a "list of dictators" - you appear to want the list deleted on grounds the posiblilty of OR/POV (which you dare not express - since you know that is no ground. You have ignored by rebuttals so far leaving your miinions to try haplessly on your

behalf.

  • The fact that you have not even attempted to justify your take on NOR in terms of a wikipedia policy statement implies that you are well aware that it holds no water. Since you have conceded points which show that there can be grounds for deletions here on the basis of your nomination - your only proper course of action would be to change your vote to keep. This is what a man of principle would do - so I have no doubt what you now do. jucifer 10:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add header to ease editing

[edit]

Sorry if I'm going against some sort of a Wikipedia policy. I move that we move this to an immediate vote. Colipon+(T) 07:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's going on as we write. Those people who put votes of keep or delete up above are... well, voting. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is what we're doing. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So Zoe, have you revised your view that to call Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Pol Pot dictators is POV because "to some people, they're heros"?jucifer 01:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Change it to Robert Mugabe, Mswati III, George W. Bush and Zoe's point becomes clear. You picked the names, Zoe replied on principle. Wizzy…☎ 06:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ha Ha Ha! Suberb rebuttal - you actually impliciltly concede my point (that there are some dictators, therefore they can be listed) so yes, that really is a knock-out arguement. Pow! jucifer 09:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
jucifer, You and I might be able to agree some names. Zoe (for example) might not agree to our list. You re-iterate your point. I re-iterate my reply (please check the talk page of the subject article). Wizzy…☎ 09:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wizzy please! My point was simply that there are some dictators that can be so described without violating NPOV (check the policy - it very minor opinions can be+should be completly ignored under NPOV)! As I have pointed out, if this is true, there can be a list. The fact that Mugabe Mswati and Bush can't be added without violating NPOV only means that they can't be added to the list. For you own benefit, I think you should state here (in a scentence + without diversionary examples) your ground for the deletion of the list: jucifer 10:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See my delete entry above. If there is any disagreement on any entry by some people, does that mean that they also cannot be added to the list ? Or is it just our list of favourites ? Wizzy…☎ 10:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wizzy, the NPOV policy means that all mainstrem views are given eaqual airtime, minor views are mentioned, and far-out views are not. Even User:172 has admitted that there can be a list of NPOV "dictators". Are you still arguing that it is POV to say that Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot etc are dictators? jucifer 10:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
jucifer, I think the best place to battle out Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot is on their respective pages. Interested editors are watching, some historians are present. I might even be persuaded to shift from Delete to Weak Delete if this page became a Category instead. But my problem is not with Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot. It is with Mugabe, Mswati and Bush - that is where the POV pitches in. You and I agree to leave out Mswati. Did we ask Zoe ? Must we ask her as well ? Wizzy…☎ 10:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I imfer that you now understand why it isn't POV to call Hitler a dictator. Ah the progress! If you don't wan't Mugabe on the list - you can remove him - no need to delete the list. This is far better than a category since it is visible in the "what links here page" for anyone who cares and is capable of nuance and annotation. Why not have both? I they can be categorised they can be listed. Give it some thought anyhoo, I gotta go. Keep well. jucifer 10:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Superb rebuttal, Wiz. FearÉIREANN 16:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not voting, it's a directed consensus finding discussion. It's pretty similar to voting, and has similar objectives, but is not quite the same thing. (voting is also a consensus finding method, but one that is not used on wikipedia as such, much to the confusion of many) :-) Kim Bruning 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually voting is regularly used and specific votes (called "votes") have been called numerous times on numerous pages. FearÉIREANN 16:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And these were against policy, failed, or both. Kim Bruning 05:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Hmm, is there a more general and neutral word than dictator? I'm looking for the meaning that says a person who "rules alone". Autocrat? Maybe. Any idea? Kim Bruning 05:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word is rather uniquely useful for its brevity. If it is to be softened, perhaps it is with another word such as "alleged", although that would appear too wishywashy for the likes of Castro, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. I notice that for some reason this term arouses accusations of being too POV to deal with, while many of the articles openly discuss the seeming similarly POV distinguishing assessment of personality cults, without much conflict. --Silverback 06:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Since the page Dictator give a pretty clear definition of what a dictator is, it's possible to create a list of figures. wikipediatrix 06:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then try classifying the following leaders who have been mentioned on this page: Pervez Musharraf, Vladimir Putin, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Alberto Fujimori, Hugo Chavez, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, Robert Mugabe, and Mswati III. Each of the said leaders has been described as a dictator. Others, however, argue otherwise. Regardless of whether or not they are included in the list, the list is POV. To include them in the list is POV. To not include them in the list means that Wikipedia is implying that they are not dictators. There is no way this list can be kept up in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 172 06:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the there are credible sources that make the case, even though controversial, they can be included, although perhaps they should be qualified per the contrary views. The list of dictators could have a separate section for those leading authoritarian, non-democratic one party states, and another section for majoritarian elected leaders who are much criticised for their authoritarian populist violation of rights, and destructive mismanagement of their economies. The distinctions would be informative. I'd rather have a proliferation of distinctions or sections on the one page, where they can be seen in contrast and comparison rather than on replicating figures on multiple lists on different pages. Musharraf is a military dictator who came to power in a coup. He may lack the state to violate the rights and impose the control that a Xiaoping or Castro does. But when one acts as these people have, it is only natural that some authoritative sources will make an argument that they are dictators. No harm and possibly a lot of good has been done by catagorizing them as dictators. Perhaps some of these figures will even be motivated to earn their way off the list.--Silverback 08:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The list of dictators could have a separate section for those leading authoritarian, non-democratic one party states, and another section for majoritarian elected leaders who are much criticised for their authoritarian populist violation of rights, and destructive mismanagement of their economies. Your cure is worse than the disease. Coming up with a taxonomy for different kinds of regimes (majoritarian, authoritarian, single-party, etc.) adds an even more problematic layer of POV, as there is a lot more disagreement over taxonomies for different kinds of regimes than there is on the definition of dictator. 172 08:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More categories and distinctions are time tested way of dealing with complexity, which is the real issue here, not POV. People working together in good faith can agree on the what definitions are being used at any given time. Since our reliance on sources means that material will be coming from places using different definitions of dictator, or whatever terms we are dealing with in wikipedia, it means that we have to qualify things. If some source is to call Mugabe as a dictator and have any credibility and informative content beyond mere name calling, then they will have to have justified and qualified their assertion, i.e., "I call Mugabe a dictator because he has these characteristics that are dictatorial such as acknowledging few moral or legal restraints on his power, etc...". Now, maybe you still don't think Mugabe should be called a dictator by your definition of the word, but at least you know what was meant by the person who did use it, and perhaps even agree that the other person, has in good faith, properly applied their definition of dictator to the facts, even if you still don't like or agree with their definition.--Silverback 08:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why can't it be renamed List of individuals that are generally considered to have been dictators or some such wording? We have a List of films that have been considered the worst ever, a list of video games considered the worst ever, and even a List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever and that one just survived a VfD. Can someone please explain to me why someone would want to defend Adolf Hitler more vehemently then Gigli?!? --Easter Monkey 07:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing what "generally" means is POV in and of itself. If we draft a list of leaders "considered by some to be dictators," the criterion for inclusion is so loose and vague that just about any leader can be included. 172 07:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then get rid of the "generally". It seems to be working on the movies listing, there are a number of editors over there that rigorously apply the caveat that I now see on my edit screen: Please make sure your changes do not violate any copyright and are based on verifiable sources. Each movie gets a blurb about why it's on the list and each entry is thoroughly vetted and verified so that the standards of credible, verifiable sources have been used. Sure, it'll take work, but looking through the history of this page, there seems to be more then enough folks interested in making sure that the standard of not pushing pov are met? Right? --Easter Monkey 07:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I perfer to look at things on a more case-by-case basis. What may be workable on articles on movies may not work with history and politics. The problem here is the possibility of users creating bias through the selection of certain verifiable sources over others, possibly based on whether or not they conform to their own POV. There also the huge liklihood of bias in that sources that disagree with classification of certain leaders are much harder to cite. They often just don't use the term; and it's impossible to cite what a source may be implying but not stating explicitly. 172 08:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That can be avoided by detailing what sources can be used. For example List of purported cults, although permanently in POV dispute, does that. The word dictator can be misused, but I see little evidence that's ever stopped anything. Neo-conservative is often misused but there is a List of people described as neoconservatives. Fascist is routinely misused, but there is a List of fascists. I'm not sure why dictator is any more debatable then things like "worst", "best", "Fascist", "cult", etc that already exist in list forms.--T. Anthony 10:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There have been self-describing fascists and neoconservatives, so matters are not quite the same. To describe some people as fascists and neoconservatives is not POV, so long as the classification is based on their professed affiliations. Nevertheless, there has been a lack of vigilance on those articles, with many POV classifications slipping in that are not based on self-definitions, thus making the difference between those two articles and an inherently POV entry like list of modern day dictators somewhat unclear at first glance. The list of neoconservatives, in particular, has been broadened to such a great extent beyond those who use the term to refer to themselves (such as Irving Kristol and his associates) that I favor redirecting the article until it is cleaned up. Unfortunately, other articles may have problems similar to the ones found in this list; but we cannot allow deteriorating standards on those other others to serve as an excuse to lower the standards when creating new entries. Regarding the List of purported cults, I have not looked at the article, but judging from the title, it may not warrant deletion for the reasons emphasized on this VfD thread. While a comparisons may not be too helpful, as it is probably best to decide these matters on a case-by-case basis anyway, the description of a "cult" is easier to work with because there is always a large volume of literature on whether or not a certain organization is a cult coming from both sides of the debate. In the West there are large communities of experts regularly publishing large volumes of work monitoring and classifying cults. The term "dictator," however, is mostly used loosely as a pejorative, and never with anywhere the kind of rigor that some attempt to bring to bear in the classification of cults. 172 11:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain where you live that "dictator" is used in a looser fashion then "cult." To me dictator is pretty much just "a single ruler with absolute authority and lacking legal or constitutional restraints." A cult is often "any religion I personally dislike" or "any religion that fits one sociologists check off list." I can find just as many research groups willing to call a leader a dictator as I could ones willing to call a group a cult. More, probably, because the term has been Less misused then cult.--T. Anthony 11:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to usage in informal conversations. I'm referring to the specialized professional publications. There are groups that try to use the term cult with some rigor, such as the Cultic Studies Review and ICSA's Cult Information Service. This is way outside my area of expertise, as I am not a social psychologist. But I was quickly able to find a list of links on cultic studies on a University of Calgary website. [13] The term "dictator," however, is not subject to the same kind of academic debate because it is not used as an ideal-type by scholars, as it has little value as an ideal-type. The reason is that the usage of the term dictator is often not going to be too revealing in the end-- a matter that only Jeremy Shapiro has really touched on so far. (I suggest that you take a look at his comment as well.) 172 11:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well in the dictionary, after the Roman version, it states: "b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively."[14] From Scholar Google there is the following on dictatorships and dictators.[15],[16],[17],[18], [19]--T. Anthony 12:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Before wading through this debate I would have thought that the reason that the term dictator hasn't been subjected to the same kind of academic debate as some other terms is that it is well enough defined such that a native english speaker would understand what it means. Additionally, I would have thought that it would be a matter of common sense when coming up with a list of folks that have been/are considered dictators. That a number of world leaders have been dictators is a matter of historical fact, it says so on the individual pages dedicated to each (well, most of them anyway), what's wrong with listing them all together for a single point of reference? --Easter Monkey 11:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing to claim that the usage is a "matter of common sense"; it's another thing to look at the specific histories in question. Many leaders called "dictators" by their oppoents defy easy classification: among the countless examples of such leaders are the ones that have been brought up on this page: Pervez Musharraf, Vladimir Putin, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Alberto Fujimori, Hugo Chavez, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, Robert Mugabe, and Mswati III. 172 12:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The word dictator is used in the scholarly pages linked to on your own page.Paul Hensel,ICPSR, Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign relations, Eldis, The Brookings Institute, and others.--T. Anthony 12:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is, mostly in passing, with the usage not being discussed in much detail. If anyone looks hard enough, he will be able to dig up some article calling a leader he dislikes described a dictator. Meanwhile, the less broad usage of the term will be lost because writers who don't regard certain leaders regarded by others as dictors aren't addressing the issue of why they don't use the term. Giving users a green light to push POV, so long as they try hard enough to bias the selection of the sources so that the citations fit their POV, is not the way to raise encyclopedic standards on Wikipedia. 172 13:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So....why not keep the list, and then take each of the entries on a case by case basis? (I perfer to look at things on a more case-by-case basis. Your words...) I've not taken the time to go to each of these individual pages to check for sure, but I would think that there would be (I would hope that there would be) a healthy discussion as to the validity of applying the term dictator to each one of those in turn. Thus, by virtue of the fact that each is under consideration for the application of the term dictator on their own pages, why can't we then list them all in one place? --Easter Monkey 12:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
POV judgment calls are not supposed to be determined by "healthy discussion as to the validity of applying the term dictator" among Wikipedia editors-- original research in no uncertain terms. I recommend considering the leaders other users and I keep on mentioning as examples (Pervez Musharraf, Vladimir Putin, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Alberto Fujimori, Hugo Chavez, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, Robert Mugabe, and Mswati III) in order to understand how murky the classification can be-- allowing any Wikipedia editor to exclude or include just about any leader of he is clever enough with the craft and rhetoric involved in the construction of the classification. In the end Wikipedia is best served by faithfully and rigidly following NPOV and NOR policies, not circumventing them creatively because certain Wikipedia editors just happen to enjoy drafting politically oriented lists. 172 13:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That said what if this were changed to "modern day rulers for life." There are several rulers who do self-describe as presidents or rulers for life.--T. Anthony 11:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a pretty long post on the problems associated with using the term "modern." Please take a look at it... Yes, there are presidents-for-life, such as Saparmurat Niyazov. No new list needs to be created because there already is one in the president for life article. 172 11:27, 2 December 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 Weekend. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend off

[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. Could *possibly* be a wiktionary entry. Cmdrjameson 03:32, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 23:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chancery (Cornell University)

[edit]

del student secret society. No sources, verifiability problem. mikka (t) 03:25, 26 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 speedily redirected to old age. BD2412 T 15:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Old people

[edit]

This article appears to be a dictionary definition. Unless this article is useful and can be expanded, I'd say delete. Foogol 04:01, 26 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impaled Northern Moonforest

[edit]

NN band, possible hoax, recommend delete Pete.Hurd 04:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No AMG entry, top google hits all fairly rediculous user reviews submitted to obscure websites. Everything associated with this band seems to be a joke. Pete.Hurd 04:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to me that Putnam is notable for being in so many non-notable vanity joke black metal/white power bands unknown to AMG with wikipedia entries. Or notable for having so many contradictory (& unverifyable) wikipedia articles covering overdose induced comas, or improbable spatz with notable musicians which generate lots of name dropping wikilinks in his large catalog of wikipedia pages. Sure, AC is a valid band, making Putnam something like a lesser modern Tesco Vee or Billy Milano, but the entries relating to him -and his notable activities- reek of fiction. Pete.Hurd 18:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merging it to Seth Putnam is an option than. Spearhead 22:32, 26 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 Spedy Delete --RoySmith 23:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony R. Woodard

[edit]

Hoax. I can find no verification of this. Joyous | Talk 04:39, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 23:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justin P. Calvin

[edit]

Author of a "well-known" but seemingly non-existent book. Joyous | Talk 04:40, 26 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 00:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smokeeter

[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. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Channel 4 programames moved to List of Channel 4 television programmes

[edit]

I would hope the reasons for this nomination would be obvious. However, I'll spell them out: 1)Violation of WP:NOT section 1.7, that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, 2)Utterly useless. Even if it specified where this Channel 4 is (since there's one in every TV jurisdiction) and a time frame for "recently", there would be no legitimate situation in which that information would need to be compiled, let alone put on Wikipedia. We shouldn't keep ridiculous lists like this simply because "it could be useful to some hypothetical researcher". Delete this. The Literate Engineer 04:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I now realize that Channel 4 is a major network in the UK. However, as for these lists being standard practice, I have no respect for that practice. I found this article thorugh the random article link, thought it was an isolated problem, and nominated it. I would like to see the "several dozen more" which SimonP mentions deleted along with this one, but I recognize their nomination would be a futile effort. And, as I said, I disagree that this sort of list is sufficiently useful for its utility to be a positive attribute (and thus, to be relevant). The Literate Engineer 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We of course appreciate your work categorizing articles. Yes, this is messy and it needs cleanup. However, it does do something that categories won't; it lists programmes for which there are no articles yet. This list can also be annotated. It isn't now, but I hope it will be soon in the future as it is cleaned up. See WP:CLS for more info. Jacqui★ 14:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair and certainly I wasn't intending to suggest categorizing is somehow better - it's just a matter of keeping the lists more or less the same. But in some respects I rendered my objection (such as it was) moot by mentioning that other network lists articles include additional info such as the program grids. Long story short, a keep vote (as if it needed it) with the suggestion the article be expanded like the others. 23skidoo 16:47, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Brittany/Temp

[edit]

Why is this article in existence? What's wrong with Culture of Brittany? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:46, 26 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 as vandalism by Wonderfool (see discussion on WP:ANI. -Doc ask? 13:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Home-churching

[edit]

A joke article based on this satirical Onion article [20]. See User:Wonderfool's comments in Talk:Nihilartikel for an attempt to penetrate the veil of mystery regarding why a good editor would do such a thing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. I counted Zoe, Quentin, D Monack, Renata3, HackJandy and Peyna arguing for deletion and Michan, RoySmith and Zordrac arguing against, which makes it pure numerically a borderline case. Proceeding to look at the arguments. I note that Zoe's nomination is very weak and Michan created the article as her/his first contribution. RoySmith almost convinced me to keep it, but in the end, the lack of credible references was fatal. If there had been a references to a national newspaper or magazine or something like that, I would have kept it, but blogs just don't cut it, I'm afraid. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sholom Keller

[edit]

nn "agitator and theoretician" User:Zoe|(talk) 06:22, 26 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 by community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 00:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle and Evan Do The Movies

[edit]

NN amateur video series.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Idries Shah, not sufficiently strong consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Octagon Press - Idries Shah

[edit]

It reads like an advertisement, can't work out whether it's about the publisher or the person, and smells heavily of copyvio (though I haven't found the source). We already have Idries Shah, so a redirect isn't out of the question, but would anyone search using this title? Grutness...wha? 06:47, 26 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 00:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melbtrip

[edit]

Delete. Nothing but linkspam, with text straight from the website. I added the link to the Melbourne page. I don’t think a redirect is necessary. •DanMS 07:02, 26 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) StabRule 07:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American scientists

[edit]

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American academics, List of Jewish American show business figures, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American business figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. Arniep 15:40, 26 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination)

List of Jewish American academics

[edit]

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American show business figures, List of Jewish American scientists, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American business figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. Arniep 15:41, 26 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) StabRule 07:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American political figures

[edit]

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American academics, List of Jewish American show business figures, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American business figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. Arniep 15:41, 26 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) StabRule 07:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American business figures

[edit]

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American academics, List of Jewish American scientists, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American showbusiness figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. Arniep 15:41, 26 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) StabRule 07:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


List of Jewish American show business figures

[edit]

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American academics, List of Jewish American scientists, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American business figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why don't we delete the main "Jewish Americans" list instead? It's a lot harder to read than this one because it's so big.Vulturell 08:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I figured these would get more votes to delete than the main one - but if you think the main one will go down easier then fine by me. The point is one of these have to go. StabRule 10:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. Arniep 15:41, 26 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) StabRule 07:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American writers

[edit]

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American academics, List of Jewish American scientists, List of Jewish American business figures, List of Jewish American showbusiness figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:28, 26 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination)

List of Jewish American artists

[edit]

List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American show business figures, List of Jewish American scientists, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American business figures, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American academics --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:26, 26 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 null and void see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans. - StabRule 07:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC) StabRule rethought the close and reposted per this comment. The result of the debate was Keep - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination). - StabRule 07:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American musicians

[edit]
List of Jewish American musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and

List of Jewish American academics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish American artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish American business figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish American scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish American show business figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish American sport figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish American writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans. Having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched. -- StabRule 08:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. -- StabRule 08:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, the WP:FAITH nominations are just set up as a distraction by User:Arniep who himself went on a rampage recently and nominated literally dozens of lists for deletion on the basis of a WP:POINT. I have been on Wikipedia under an anonymous IP and finally decided to make a username because people were bitching about anonymous IPs on page deletions. For that reason, I am concentrating on deleting the lists that are the most numerous - among them happens to be a lot of Jewish lists. A blatant call for anti-Semitism on User:Arniep's part I expected, and he seems to be very immature. I already discussed with User:Vulturell that either these smaller lists need to go or the bigger list because they are virtual copies of each other. There is no WP:POINT nomination here - this could even be considered speedy delete material. -- StabRule 21:15, 26 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) StabRule 07:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American sport figures

[edit]

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American business figures, List of Jewish American academics, List of Jewish American scientists, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American showbusiness figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:26, 26 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Americans

[edit]

This AFD can be closed on Speedy Keep basis now that it was reformed.

Actually, the correct closing would be consensus Peyna 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If that exists, then yes. StabRule 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read before voting: Seeing as some people get confused by this nomination, I will attempt to explicate what this nomination is for. This afd is up in order to come to the consensus that this list should be cleared and made into an index for the duplicate lists that already exist. If everyone agrees it is fine to do that, then this afd can be closed. StabRule 21:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should either be deleted or have links to the smaller categories (Jewish American Show Business figures, etc.). There's no point, that even I can see, to having this huge page and the bunch of separate pages that are essentially replicates of it.Vulturell 18:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to explicate what this nomination is for - If the nomination is not for deletion, why is it here? Peyna 00:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Originally the idea WAS for it to be up for deletion - but as soon as the page is deleted it will be used as an index. This is a common occurence for pages of the like. If we agree to turn it into an index then there's no need to continue this vote though. StabRule 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then I invite you to merge this with all of the other lists and turn this into an index. There was no need to bring this to an AfD vote before taking other more appropriate actions. Peyna 01:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look, though I appreciate you compromising, I know that this would not turn out the same if I had put it in the TALK page. Plus my original intention was to keep this big list and just delete the smaller ones, which I had closed (albeit, I wasn't suppose to close my own AFD nominations or something like that). StabRule 02:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Putting this up top since it is important; I have begun to split the list into smaller lists and so far have completely with the grouping for Academics. I think this should be enough to satisfy most of the people here. Peyna 02:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have completed my work on subdividing the list; please review it; I think this should be good enough for the article to survive AfD and move remaining discussions on the topic to the talk page. Thanks. Peyna 02:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arniep, clearly you do not understand. You cannot vote "keep" on both this list and the smaller separate lists - for they are identical. You need to make up your mind on which to choose. If you feel that the smaller lists should be kept than please state so and STATE that you want this page cleared and only used as an index for the smaller lists. Otherwise people might not know where you stand. StabRule 03:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment Your own vote (Delete content and Link to Smaller Pages) means exactly the same as what I said, you can keep the current page and merely remove the list content if it is already duplicated and then add links to the appropriate pages. Arniep 03:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we agree on that then fine - that is all I want to do - clear this page. StabRule 05:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Catholics are masterful.Vulturell 05:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see what this vote is about before putting "keep" - Thanks. StabRule 05:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was about Jews. That was why I voted Strong Keep, or was it delete? So many of these damned Jew lists on Afd I can't remember. My brain hurts a lot. Please tell me what I must do StabRuler... -- JJay 05:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You voted keep on a list that already exists: See Category:Lists of Jewish Americans. The point of this afd is that this main page should be deleted and used as an index to the smaller lists. That's all. StabRule 06:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment Any reason this VFD isn't listed on any of the AFD pages? Peyna 05:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. It should be. StabRule 06:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we Delete content and Link to Smaller Pages, we must make sure that all of the content on List of Jewish Americans are on the respective specific pages. It is possible and likely that many users have worked on the former and may have not copied the entries onto the latter.
In that case, we'll move these portion into the specified smaller lists. StabRule 19:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No the rationale for this nomination is ANOTHER LIST ALREADY EXISTS. I don't see why this is so difficult for everyone to understand. StabRule 19:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is arrogant and dishonest about this? Absolutely nothing. You just take these lists too personally as clearly illustrated in your WP:POINT frenzy. By voting delete on this page you're saying you want to have this page cleared and made into an index - which we all CLEARLY stated above. If I was to go and clear this page myself and make it into an index I would be met with massive controversy. That is exactly why I had an AFD put up - because this way we can actually come to a consensus that this list will be made into an index. By voting strong keep, you're making it seem as if you want to keep the material in this list ------- which makes no sense.StabRule 21:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't even have to bring this problem anywhere near deletion, you just needed to make the necessary edits yourself or post a note on the talk page. And regarding the point I made it was not because I care about these lists specifically, it is because I care about fairness and equal arguments being applied to all lists. Arniep 22:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned the only IP I have used because I was expecting accusations like the one above. StabRule 01:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can go ahead and throw immature insults at me; that's fine I'll take them -- but you and I both know that clearing a list of this size IS a big deal to people and an afd IS the best place to have a consensus. Discussion pages are often ignored and I guarantee nobody who monitors this list would agree to the deletion of this page and transformation of it into an index. StabRule 23:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well again, you are wrong. I would have agreed if you had posted a message on the talk page, but you didn't do that. Arniep 23:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I seriously doubt that. StabRule 23:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because you make false assumptions? Arniep 23:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you unilateral went straight for AfD instead of bringing it up on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we don't just go around calling a vote on every issue. AfD is not for votes on this type of change, it is for deleting a page and to have it never to be created again. There are a lot of other actions that could and should be taken first. Peyna 00:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is so hard to grasp. My original intention was the delete the smaller lists for they are excess - someone suggested to delete the bigger list. Therefore, I agreed. Here we are. If you wish to use this list as an index later. FINE BY ME. The overall point is that one of the lists need to go. That's all. StabRule 01:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and, in general, voting is evil (and stupid). Decisions should be made by consensus decision making rather than a strict majority rule. Peyna 00:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not mean voting it out on AfD, it means discussing what should take place on the talk page, then coming to a consensus on it. That could include some sort of compromise, but does not involve voting. I would prefer if someone speedy kept all of these AfDs and then it can be discussed on the talk pages first. If that does not get anywhere, then there can be a formal survey or vote. Peyna 00:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting a page DOES NOT mean it can never be remade. This was and still is the best course of action - to hold and afd. If these are speedy kept then we can continue the discussion in the Talk Page. StabRule 01:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's hard to decide whether it's more annoying to have this misuse of AfD procedures, or scurilous and gratuitious (albeit somewhat literate) backhanded accusations of anti-semitism by editors like JJay who references Martin Niemöller. On the first: if you want a page cleaned up, do that through the article talk page, or in the extreme, via RfC; AfD'ing as a euphemism for "change the content" is asinine. On the second, if you think deleting a few words from a website is the moral equivalent of murdering your family, you are in serious need of mental health intervention. Grow up! Get over it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for the kind words regarding my literacy. You are free to interpret my vote anyway you see fit. The same is true concerning my mental health, or lack thereof. But do not ever accuse me of playing tennis. I do not like little yellow balls, or white shorts. If you need to resort to that type of name calling, at least have the simple decency to do it on my talk page. -- JJay 18:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:CIVIL; WP:NPA; that goes for both of you. Peyna 19:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I believe the "merge" votes here were made in jest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chauney Adams was a mispelling. Changed to the corrent Chauncey Adams.

Double action corn harvesting

[edit]

Google found no hits for this or any references to a great farmer named Chauney Adams. --JHMM13 08:49, 26 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 by community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 00:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Falconist Party

[edit]

A Google search of this party's name yields 2000+ hits. Most of them are forum discussions among politically interested curious at this unheard of party with an objectively fascist ideology. The party's actual presence doesn't extend beyond their tripod page. A further search of 1500+ global newspaper archives using the Newsbank service yields 0 articles containing the name of the party--so, no party leader or candidate (if there ever was one) has spoken to the media. delete because there is a strong possibility this is a web hoax party. Lotsofissues 09:00, 26 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 no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurdistani

[edit]

Hard to tell if this online paper is notable. Nominated for CSD, but I don't think it quite fits. I decided to nominate it for AfD to be fair to the CSD nominator (although I also left the CSD tag in place). My opinion: Very weak keep. --Nlu 09:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)After some additional thought, Delete. --Nlu 21:21, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 03:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve's backyard boxing

[edit]

Website advertisement, original research, etc. Gamaliel 09:25, 26 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. – Robert T | @ | C 04:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Wikipedia editors

[edit]

Very little content is provided as to what to this board actually does, this is just a proposal (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) and Wikipedia is not meant for articles about itself, and its procedures in all its varieties. For these three reasons, delete. -- SoothingR(pour) 09:41, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 03:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sant_Baljit_Singh

[edit]

I received a communication from Sant Baljit Singh's organization that he feels this page or sources it links to violates his copyright. His organization wants it removed. I don't see any problems with the page but would like to respect his wishes in this regard. Please Delete. Sevadar 09:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin 06:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Article was deleted by User:Bumm13; however, AfD was never closed. -- Psy guy Talk 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stef de Bont

[edit]

Non-notable; no articles link here; request to justify notability ignored for a month. BrainyBroad 10:01, 26 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Aggarwal

[edit]

The article is just an exercise in promotion. It is taken straight from the subject's website. Georgeslegloupier 11:25, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 03:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Owen

[edit]

nn bio-- негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 12:20, 26 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Shyam Chalisa

[edit]

This article contains lyrics for a Hindu bhajan. Since its hardly intelligible and anyways, WP does not document lyrics, this page should be deleted May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:21, 26 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 NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of political epithets

[edit]

Delete. Take equal parts neologism and dic-def, stew in POV sauce and you have this page. It's a place holder for dubious, rarely used cruft from U.S. political wars (Democunt?!) an insufficient number of which are sourced and I think qualifies as an indiscriminate collection of info. And no, for the people who are concerned about POINT noms with lists, this isn't an effort at POINT. Specified, scaleable lists have a place. I don't believe this qualifies. And to forestall "but we need this page as a re-direct target," pages stay or go on their own merits. If you'd like a page on Communist epithets, OK--that would be specified and scaleable. Marskell 12:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete per Klonimus attempt to clean this up are being reverted by its 'owners'. --Doc ask? 13:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing Admin

[edit]

Can we please have a complete tally of the voting when this VfD is comepleted. Klonimus 00:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current tally is 16 keeps, 9 deletes. Zordrac 12:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


As of closing, I count 14 Keep, 10 Delete, and 1 anon discarded. Owen× ☎ 03:56, 2 December 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 00:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ratheesh

[edit]

WP:NOT Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary Delete-- негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 12:28, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin zammit

[edit]

Non-notable, fails google test, pre-war football team and Sky Malta reference when it does not even exist. Further details on Malta-related_topics_notice_board Maltesedog 12:35, 26 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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decade Nostalgia

[edit]

I'm really not sure about this at all. Perhaps I shouldn't have put it in AfD; however.... as mentioned on Talk:Decade Nostalgia, it could be construed as a collection of "original research" or POV subject matter.

Before you assert that it's about "popular perception" and nostalgia, not reality, I'd like to say this. The article primarily reflects an American perspective of nostalgia, and as I mention here, this isn't necessarily the view held by other people; not even as *nostalgia*. Whilst the stereotypical 'nostalgia' view of the 1950s in many countries is undoubtedly that of post-war Americana, I believe that this applies less to other decades (e.g. 1970s, 1980s).

The article should reflect the (probably inaccurate) perception(s) to the extent that they are currently seen, but it should not add to a particular bias. To have a US-centric article would reinforce these views more than they currently exist, and would not be suited to Wikipedia.

Here's the problem; the article already has some potential issues with POV/bias to begin with, but I think it would be hard to accurately reflect 'common' stereotypes without bias towards one's own cultural perspective. And I can see the whole thing descending into a horrid list of country-specific and argumentative stuff, obscuring the inherent generality of the "decade nostalgia" being described.

At the same time, this is no excuse for keeping a US view alone, unless that reflects the view of the rest of the world.

So, I am not voting for or against at present; although if the vote is to retain, I certainly intend keeping it as universal as possible; not as a historical article, but as an accurate representation of 'nostalgia'. Fourohfour 13:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Deleted by User:Ingoolemo; however, AfD never closed. -- Psy guy Talk 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Globalf1.net

[edit]

Spam for a non-notable discussion board with 494 members. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well delete it. - Martin-1

Delete - Not to worry Ian13. In your defense I admit it does portray itself as that but, as a newer member/user of Wikipedia - I haven't really got a feel for it just yet. Thanks again everyone, I think the article should be deleted asap. --Martin-1


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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' . Owen× ☎ 04:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Can You Sing That Song

[edit]

What is this even about? Nonsense in many ways, but I doubt it would pass as speedy Ian13 13:52, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EthicalNetwork.org

[edit]

Website spam, albeit that of an org Ian13 14:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As an extra note, the website seems rather empty, and features the grand sum of 3 copied 'essays' from other sources. Also seems to lack the members they claim. Ian13 15:42, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael William Foster

[edit]

I believe that this is a non-notable graphic artist. His website is here. The section on news has several local articles, but nothing later than 2003. Joyous | Talk 14:24, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pair of One

[edit]

This is a minor act in a local circus. Unencyclopedic. Joyous | Talk 14:55, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Safiullah Faqiri

[edit]

Non-notable bio making a weak try at establishing notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Lynch. Joyous | Talk 15:06, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Lynch

[edit]

Non-notable bio making a weak try at establishing notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safiullah Faqiri. Joyous | Talk 15:06, 26 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 or merge with Mike Teavee. This one will need some formatting before it can be merged without making the Mike Teavee article look like a dump, so I will add a merge tag instead of merging this myself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Teavee Song

[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 to Delete the article. I have speedied it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sailesh Mishra

[edit]

NN-bio, but not quite a speedy. Joyous | Talk 15:52, 26 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 as patent nonsense by GraemeL

Santosh style

[edit]

"SantoshStyle cannot be taught or explained." If so, it probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Joyous | Talk 15:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Added Speedy deletion to main page, so now do we delete the RFD? :) Sethie 20:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! We sorta kinda keep it. Santosh, on the other hand, can't be taught or explained and must therefore go away. - Lucky 6.9 20:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to The Apprentice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're fired

[edit]

This appears to be no more than a dictionary definition of the phrase. Unless it can be expanded to include more detail (which I doubt) it should be deleted. Foosher 16:13, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf Kristersson

[edit]

Non-notable, municipal politician. Ifnord 16:42, 26 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 merge/redirect. I have merged the contents of Don Aoki into Keynote Systems and will be redirecting the article as suggested. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 21:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don Aoki

[edit]

The only part of this article that might be notable is that this man is Vice-President of Keynote Systems, a fact that is already included on the company's page. The other details included in the article are definitely not notable. This article does not add any new information to Wikipedia, and therefore falls under the vanity guidelines. Delete. Sliggy 16:44, 26 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 merge/redirect. I have merged the content of Patrick Quirk into Keynote Systems, and will redirect the article. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 21:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Quirk

[edit]

The only part of this article that might be notable is that this man is Vice-President of Keynote Systems, a fact that is already included on the company's page. The other details included in the article are not notable or encyclopedic, so it falls under the vanity guidelines. Delete. Sliggy 16:51, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dynasty, Dynasty Records

[edit]

I'm not sure this meets WP:MUSIC. Joyous | Talk 16:58, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramses the Pigeon

[edit]

Nonsense or hoax. Or both. A web comics with the same name exists [23], but I think it does not fit WP:WEB, and the article seems not even to be about the character of the comics. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:18, 26 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 (no consensus). 4d-2k, but the reason that the article was a hoax has been addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunken Giant

[edit]

Hoax. External website shows publicity-seeking diver. Ifnord 17:44, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rare witch project

[edit]

Not notable, advertisement, doesn't meet WP:Web, vanity Dbchip 17:46, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYTE

[edit]

Nonsense Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:59, 26 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. Zordrac is correct that the advertising has been removed. However, there was also the neologism charge, which a quick Google confirms to be likely true, with only 50 useful hits. Now I would not normally Google myself during an AfD closure, but this time it's important to verify the Google count claims in the debate and to see whether the neologistic claims have the basis claimed in the debate. -Splashtalk 23:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biznik

[edit]

Article describes a neologism related to some business motivation/networking type site, and then goes on to advertise for that site. Only contributing author to this article is User:Danmcccomb who runs the blog on the site advertised in the article [24]. --W.marsh 17:59, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Third Console Syndrome

[edit]

Seems almost made up. Never heard of it myself and seems unencyclopedic. Google search just brings up this article. Thunderbrand 18:01, 26 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. – Robert T | @ | C 04:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mermology

[edit]

This does not seem particularly notable. I found 9 unique hits on Google, 4 of which are Wikipedia mirrors, and the others are all from blogs/discussion boards. This is apparently something brand new: the article was created on August 27, 2005. I am not sure about this one. Let the panel decide. •DanMS 18:22, 26 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 as nonsense by Lucky 6.9

Shawn (Mortal Kombat)

[edit]

Never even heard of "Shawn" and niether has any search engine (Notorious4life 03:25, 26 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 as silly vandalism CSD G3. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colin o'sullivan

[edit]

Googling "Colin o'sullivan" + "pornography" yields no hits. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the AIDS virus wasn't officially discovered until the 1980s. Extraordinary Machine 18:27, 26 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 MERGE to Hefty Fine, without a copy-paste of the lyrics which, without critical comment would not be fair use. -Splashtalk 23:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo

[edit]

Notable band, yes. Notable song, yes. Encyclopedic content, very doubtful. Enough "critical analysis" to balance the copyrighted lyrics comprising the bulk of the article? Hell no. Delete this, then create redirect to Hefty Fine, which isn't exactly running out of space. I'd redirect it myself, but that's how edit wars start. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to MMORPG. Owen× ☎ 04:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WTS

[edit]

no need for own page, info already in mmorpg Sethie 19:54, 26 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. – Robert T | @ | C 04:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skybluz

[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Delete  RasputinAXP  T C 20:19, 26 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 no consensus to delete, but both articlea are clear copyvios; they have been listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Johnleemk | Talk 10:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Penny Productions and Buddy Cop Show

[edit]

Not notable production company (Alexa web page: 3,920,459), with a bogus history in the article. Also the "produced" show is not remarkable. feydey 20:22, 26 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 deletion by Lucky 6.9 as a series of similar, non-existent episodes of Camp Lazlo

Louvre Love

[edit]

Prior deletion of CSD tag by a janitor, so I am bringing this as an AfD. Does this really justify a separate article even if cleaned up? Delete. --Nlu 20:33, 26 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. – Robert T | @ | C 04:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metal studz

[edit]

Delete. Seems to be a rather non-notable band that plays on weekends at clubs around the St. Louis area. The calendar on their website shows occasional weekend engagements, nothing more. AllMusic never heard of them. No tours mentioned, no albums released. They claim to have a “national following” but provide no evidence of that. •DanMS 20:40, 26 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 no consensus to delete. Editorial decision made to merge and redirect to Libertarian Party Florida. Johnleemk | Talk 10:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party Florida, History

[edit]

A rambling POV, very likely a copyvio (can't find a source, though). Beyond clean-up. Renata3 20:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the pages are a bit better. Let's see also what the consensus is on the LPF History and will rework on that basis. MG4UMG4U 23:59, 26 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. – Robert T | @ | C 04:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of puns coined in favor of Numa Numa parodies

[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. – Robert T | @ | C 04:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AutoestimA

[edit]

Band vanity! Surprise!!  :)) - Lucky 6.9 21:21, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MaraWiki

[edit]

This is a non-notable wiki. It has only 18 registered users. It has a few edits in its recent changes, almost all of them are spam. I googled for MaraWiki and Marathon Wiki, and I got only Wikipedia article copies and some independent lists of wikis. There are other wikis called MaraWiki or Marathon Wiki, too, which show in Google hits. The domain name of MaraWiki, zdome.net, has no Alexa ranking, so it doesn't sound a very popular website. –Hapsiainen 21:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the official Wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories." (WP:NOT) Such merging is impossible. –Hapsiainen 17:19, 1 December 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 T | @ | C 04:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. James Music Press

[edit]

I see no notability, or encyclopedic content here. Non-notable company. feydey 21:31, 26 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. – Robert T | @ | C 04:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Tripp

[edit]

NN bio. Great-great-grandaughter of some writer. Renata3 21:46, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 04:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adarahs

[edit]

Basically a high school amateur film project. Article doesn't attempt to establish notability, on the talk page they claim they were mentioned in a college newspaper. At any rate, they aren't on IMDB, have no real media coverage, and so forth. Their webpage would fail WP:WEB prop. guidelines if looked at that way (12 member forum, no alexa rank). This is just a vanity article. --W.marsh 21:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As in the vanity guidelines, fame is not a good indicator of vanity. Furthermore, real media coverage is based upon member W.marsh's own perspective. This article provides a neutral view on a cinematography team, not a high school amateur film project. If one were to actually read the article, he or she would realize that this team began with high school students but has moved on to be larger scaled. Responding to the notion of the article not establishing notability, there are references to the subject at hand, though not referenced in online publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.231.225 (talk • contribs)

Not being notable, aka fame, is not a good means for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.231.225 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE as copyvio. Why on earth did none of 3 editors actually apply the copyvio tag?? I'm just going to delete it. -Splashtalk 23:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker Loopy

[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 transwiki to Wiktionary. I will add this one to the transwiki queue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foment

[edit]

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. TheMadBaron 22:41, 26 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. – Robert T | @ | C 04:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who were executed

[edit]

This should be a category. In fact, it should be several categories. In fact, it already is several categories. See Category:Executed_people. Delete. TheMadBaron 22:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed people does just that.... TheMadBaron 09:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Let's try again: The category cannot list people by execution date. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Categories also cannot compute the average age of death of the people on the list, cast their horoscopes, or toast bagels. What's your point? Categories were created precisely in order to replace lists, which were perceived to be a maintenance nightmare. So, let's use them. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I promise that if I see a List of horoscopes of people who were executed, I will vote to delete it. Seriously, listing people in chronological rather than alphabetical order isn't too far-fetched, and I think a list like we have here is still quite useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 30 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 Re-deleted as copyvio by Lucky 6.9

Miss Tracey Brennecke

[edit]

WP:Music, not notable (acc to google), vanity/advertising Dbchip 23:02, 26 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. – Robert T | @ | C 04:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chumbawala

[edit]

probable nonsense Melaen 23:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Chumbawamba would be different. That's the name of a popular band. Zordrac 10:59, 1 December 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. Owen× ☎ 04:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Southgate

[edit]

A very minor political figure on the far right of British politics. His highest office was apparently as a regional organiser for the "Sussex region" (most probably just the counties of East Sussex and West Sussex) in the 1980s. Since then he's been struggling to get the support of more than a handful of people behind his "grouplets".

WP:BIO poses two tests for the noteworthiness of politcal figures:

According to Capitalistroadster the subject of the article does not want an article here. [27]. Thryduulf 23:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a US citizen who is not familiar with UK politics, I will abstain, but the fact the the person doesn't want an article about himself should have no bearing, it is strictly about his notablility --Rogerd 03:39, 29 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. – Robert T | @ | C 04:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boxfight

[edit]

defunct phenomenon , notability? Melaen 23:35, 26 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 by community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 00:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tzmerth shmarya

[edit]

1st VfD more than a year ago. It was kept under "clean up" provision. But in the last there was only 4 very minor edits. This article is hopless and not notable (IMHO). Renata3 23:48, 26 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 merge with Kaiser Chiefs. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaisersaurus

[edit]

a stuffed toy waved at a band at a festival doesnt look very notable or enciclopedic to me. i was hoping for a new type of dinosaur. BL kiss the lizard 23:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I've put this back on the November 26th page where it was until melaen deleted it!) BL kiss the lizard 00:44, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 00:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Borg and Radical Islam

[edit]

Absolute junk. YOU WILL BE DELETED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. --Nlu 23:50, 26 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 by community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 00:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities mistaken for Combat Veterans

[edit]

very POV , is it a legitimate list? Melaen 23:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An almost identical item (but a category) was deleted as nonsense at WP:CFD a couple of weeks ago. Delete this, too. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget John Denver. Seano1 02:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mister Rogers is in the article, and according to the Wikipedia article on Lee Marvin, Marvin was a combat veteran. --Metropolitan90 04:10, 30 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.
More