< February 22	February 24 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erol güngör[edit]

Untranslated at WP:PNT for two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what language it's in now. --Walter Görlitz 16:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Turkish ColinFine 17:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per two-week rule. --Aaron 00:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete untranslated. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Two weeks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as untranslated. However, my research reveals he's notable enough for an article, if anyone feels like writing one or translating this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Frühstücksdienst 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as untranslated after two weeks. --Terence Ong 03:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just for the record: an academic and book author connected to the rightwing-nationalist "Ülkü Ocakları" movement. ([1]) Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per alll above Avi 16:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete untranslated, 2/52 - Samir ∙ ^T_C 17:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As untranlated per 2 week requirement.--Dakota ~ ° 19:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per above.--Tone 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above DaGizza^{Chat ©} 07:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal düşünce topluluğu[edit]

From the translation desk, untranslated for two weeks. Entry from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Turkish, probably a minor political party.--M@rēino 16:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per rule Travislangley 06:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per two-week rule. --Aaron 00:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete untranslated. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Tonywalton  | Talk 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Two weeks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Frühstücksdienst 03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as untranslated and per two week rule. --Terence Ong 03:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's an "Association for Liberal Thinking", with an English-language website here: [2]. I would look closer into it if only I had the time. If somebody could try and determine by that site whether it's notable, I'd be willing to provide text for a stub later. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move now that it's been reworked, with thanks to Keresaspa. Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and translate. It is notable in Turkey. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above Avi 16:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've rewritten it from the link provided by Lukas (well done for that, sir). I have no knowledge of Turkish so I moved the original entry to the discussion page in case anyone feels like translating it. Other than perhaps moving the article to Association for Liberal Thinking nad leaving the original title as a redirect I feel that it now should be saved. Keresaspa 17:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, none of the delete votes argued that a translated version should be deleted. Kusma (討論) 18:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has been translated and as previously stated none of the votes call for deletion of a translated version.--Dakota ~ ° 19:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep new version and move to Association for Liberal Thinking. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I went ahead and did the move. Recommend early closure of this AfD. Smerdis of Tlön 15:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teamcast[edit]

Non-notable mod for dreamcast Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A quick Google search only retrieves unrelated results. Delete as non-notable and unverified. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 00:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Frühstücksdienst 03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Idril 13:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 01:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glennwood Projects[edit]

Not much context given; the article may refer to a legitimate topic, but I fear that there is not much to salvage in the current text. Schutz 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The place exists (here's an unofficial website devoted to it), but it's spelled Glenwood, not Glennwood. And I agree that the little text that this article contains is meaningless and unsalvageable. If someone else wants to write an article about these projects later on, let them start with a clean slate. --Aaron 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Aaron. —ERcheck @ 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete A7

Canfield swim team[edit]

Vanity SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete vanity. KI 01:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Does a club count as a group of people, or an organization. It asserts notability, but none of this seems remotely linked to doing well at (US?) national swimming championships - I don't think any of their people have been selected to represent their countyr.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I suspect that YSL stands for youth swimming league. Doesn't seem to be notable. Delete. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arm Wrestling (arcade game)[edit]

I think this page should be deleted because there is only one sentence on the page and I don't think alot can be added to it. Gamerforever 00:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Give it time. Travislangley 06:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a real game1, and the sentence is factual. It has the potential to be more than a stub, if someone who's actually played the game comes around and adds something. --djrobgordon 02:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arm Wrestling? There's really not much to say there. Non-notable. Jaxal1 03:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, really bad start... but, I think with the link it serves some purpose. gren グレン 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I am going to save this article now. rydia 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. --Terence Ong 03:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I moved to Arm Wrestling since it was unused... arm wrestling, of course, is that little game thing. gren グレン 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldnt it have stayed at the original title?, having articles with only a capital letter thats different is confusing -- Astrokey44|talk 10:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want. But make you you redirect Arm Wrestling to Arm wrestling and put a disambiguation on the top if it that link to Arm Wrestling (arcade game). gren グレン 18:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Needs much work. VirtualSteve 06:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep certainly more than one sentence there now. Jcuk 08:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jcuk --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is much more than a one line article now.--Dakota ~ ° 19:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per above. --Tone 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a piece of Nintendo history. No, not NES history, history of the company itself. That's notable enough. Also, it's a piece of Punch-Out!! history. Parrothead1983 (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Orbit[edit]

By itself, the article is not worth its salt, as it seems like a minor part of Cartoon Network's site. This probably deserves a mention, but on Cartoon Network instead of its own page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has its place. Travislangley 06:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It does. In its heyday there were over a million active users. Now it is still at a very high number. It has been the only part of the website to last over 7 years. It needs to be there. There will be more information added if people would just discover it. People need to give it a chance. They need to wait for the search engines to at least get it. SportsMasterESPN (Talk) 01:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Over 100,000 Google hits which seems sufficient to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Frühstücksdienst 03:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Wow, at first I thought that cited 100K figure was a result of mistakenly not using quotes in the search. It wasn't. This, apparently, is a notable subject. Cyde Weys 04:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Wknight94. ---J.Smith 06:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wknight94, notable enough. --Terence Ong 11:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cyde. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lecomte[edit]

competed in 1 event, 8th place: is this a joke? Pol098 00:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unless including every Olympian ever is some kind of precedent I'm not aware of. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN. An Olympian has got to be known for something or accomplished something of note. The above seems nothing more than an obscure athlete. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He came eighth- in the world. This is good enough, especially for the early pioneers of the sport. A lot of people have not reached #8 in the world. Why are competitors on reality shows and bandcruft and small businesses get off so lightly??? This is written by User:Jonel, with more than 5000 edits, who has greatly expanded the Olympic coverage on WP.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not a joke, it is referenced, and click "what links here".Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merely playing Major League baseball or NFL football is sufficient to have an article. The Olympics represent a similar level of notability for many lesser-known sports. See notability, people still alive.--djrobgordon 02:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Coming in 8th in an archery event at the Olympics in 2004 would give a person a claim to being the 8th-best archer in the world. Coming in 8th in an archery event at the Olympics in 1900 meant that he was the 8th-best archer who happened to be at the Paris World's Fair that day. The 1900 Summer Olympics were not contested at the same level of competition as contemporary Olympics, as suggested by the fact that contemporary sportswriters failed to keep track of the subject's given name. Note that Archery at the 1900 Summer Olympics indicates that only three countries (France, Belgium, and Netherlands) competed in archery at that Olympics, and none of the Dutch archers' names are known. Delete. --Metropolitan90 03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the old days the level and consistency of sport was not that great - does that mean that the forefathers of sport should be deleted?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. My first inclination was "delete," but djrobgordon and Blnguyen make good points. dbtfz^talk 03:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Olympians. Participation in the Olympic Games is certainly sufficient for notability. As for the "fact that contemporary sportswriters failed to keep track of the subject's given name", please note that all Olympic Reports until 1964 similarly "failed". As for having every Olympian, please check Category:Competitors at the 1896 Summer Olympics. It includes every Olympian for whom we have a name from the 1896 Games. -- Jonel | Speak 05:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The official Olympic reports included athletes' first names well before 1964; see [3] for examples. Note that the 1960 Summer Olympics report devoted over 200 pages to a list of every athlete participating in the Games, including their full names, dates of birth, places of birth, heights, and weights, none of which are known in the case of Lecomte. Furthermore, even if an athlete's full name had not been printed in the official report, his or her full name would be known if they had accomplished something of merit -- it's not as though sports historians are wondering, "I wonder who this Ewry is, who won 3 gold medals at Paris 1900?" They know who he is. I guess I'm much in the minority here, but I do not think that merely competing in the 1900 Olympics is an accomplishment comparable to competing in the contemporary Olympics in the 21st century, since the idea of having to qualify for one's national team was a minor aspect or nonexistent in 1900. --Metropolitan90 04:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per good point by Blnguyen. --Hansnesse 05:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because he's an Olympian. In this world of non-notable computer programmers, launderers who have written encyclopedia articles about themselves, and Rachel Clemons, an Olympian is a breath of fresh air on Wikipedia. Wiwaxia 08:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Olympians are notable enough. Provided this athelete has won awards in other games and competitions. --Terence Ong 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - being selected to represent your country at the Olympic Games imbues more than enough notability, without anything else being necessary. Proto||type 11:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per. Jonel. That's why I qualified my earlier delete vote - I didn't know if there was an include-all precedent like in other sports. Apparently there is... —Wknight94 (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After myself proposing this for deletion I have investigated further, and replaced what must be the spurious mention of Beaudoin in article by Lecomte, which leaves it making sense (I have also rewritten the text). The article originally made no sense, asserting nothing whatsoever about Lecomte. Pol098 16:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Blnguyen Avi 16:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not certain at this moment if I would support the blanket statement that all Olympic athletes are notable. However, I certainly support the idea that being an Olympian should change the burden of proof. Instead of having to demonstrate his worthiness to include him in the WP, we should have to demonstrate his lack of worthiness to keep him out of the WP. He's an Olympian and there's no compelling reason not to include him. -- Don Sowell 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not knowing his first name might demonstrate unworthiness!  ;-) 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 userfy and delete. One "abstain," one "question," no votes to keep. Chick Bowen 04:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikho Mosulishvili[edit]

Non-notable autobiography by User:Mikho Mosulishvili; see the page history. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy & Delete --Karnesky 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and delete. I notified User:Mikho Mosulishvili that the article was up for deletion, and that userfying the content might be a good option. dbtfz^talk 04:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and delete. Vanity page -Crenner 05:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and off main pedia. VirtualSteve 06:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy This biographical entry contains no argument for notability.  (aeropagitica)  07:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Is being decorated by ones country not notable? He claims to have been awarded the Georgian Medal of Honour. Jcuk 09:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and delete, vanity. --Terence Ong 11:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, then Delete Non notable author Avi 16:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Mikho replaced this page with an unwikied version of the article [4] & I reverted it. --Karnesky 14:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. I think we might be a little hasty here. I've gotten a decent amount of google hits, some of which are from Russian web portals I've heard of, as well as places selling or reviewing his works. Now mind you, he does appear to be a shameless self-promoter, as I'm also seeing hits of him on entirely unrelated things. Mind you, however that any hits from modern Georgian culture do *not* google well at all due to language/script/unicode issues. He seems to me to be a low-to-mid-level author; his books are still in print and seem to be moderately available, his radio plays also seem notable. There's also the issue of his Georgian Medal of Honour. His website notes that it was translated from Georgian by a professional(!) translator, which would make it seem that his command of English is shaky, at best. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've never heard of him before in Georgia. Georgian search engines give only three hits including his personal web page. Kober 11:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Anarchofied by me. (i.e. moved to Anarchopedia). Beta m (talk)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. 11 deletes including nom, not including anon, 3 keeps. Chick Bowen 04:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Bowery[edit]

Dubious claims, may be vanity or hoax sannse (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - not notable, and am doubtful about the claims. --149.169.52.67 01:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - Wikipedia must Keep this article. Bowery is a very interesting man, a United States patent holder in rocket science-related areas, sponsors space prizes out of his own pocket, and spends most of his time researching and writing with notable acclaim and is very controversial, hence someone voted for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Better_Than_You_At_Everything (talk • contribs)

- Delete - He invented e-mail, PostScript, VR and chat, and he's the closest living relative to the Kennewick man? Should we also list every guy who believes he's Napoleon? Fan1967 02:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even with the self-promotional personality described in the webpage he only has around 800 google hits, and only about 200 for google groups. Seems to be a highly non-notable self-promoting megalomaniac. JoshuaZ Keep, bu02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain Try searching under 'Jim Bowery' instead; over 4000 hits for author:'Jim Bowery'. Bowery is a net.kook of great vintage, but he attempts to hide his history. This article wasn't written by him, either, but by his detractors (except for the small revision by JABowery). Since I count myself among his detractors, I abstain. Rpresser 06:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just looking at his website asserts NN. Vanity article. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't forget need to delete his redirect Baldrson also. JoshuaZ 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cyde Weys 04:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and watch - had to think long and hard on this one - to my mind he is more notable than not but article does read like a vanity page. Nothing stopping those interested in adjusting the article style and linking to what appears to be a number of notable external links. If we can have a other loopy articles we can have this one but it needs to be de-vanity(ised)! VirtualSteve 06:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This needs to be NPOV'ed as the article mentions merely in passing the subject's contribution to the Internet and electronic comms whilst dwelling on the shadier aspects of the biography. I don't feel that this is truly representative of the subject as it currently stands.  (aeropagitica)  07:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote I can't find evidence that he invented PostScript, although he did write a document analyzing PostScript's evolution from FORTH; Google results for PostScript "jim bowery". If this gets kept, it will need to be rewritten for POV, as the current version seems to really downplay his White Nationalist views; see [5], also (straight from the horse's mouth) [6]. ergot 16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep There are some things that ring true. For example, he is listed here http://www.platopeople.com/people.html so there is some corroboration of evidence. He is actually the rightmost person on the third picture in the second row here: http://www.platopeople.com/index.html Much of the other claims are unverified; even the author, Bowery, is offering rewards for disproof of his claims. It is possible that some of the emails may be fake, but as much of his claims come from being highly involved with the PLATO system, and that has been coroborrated, it should be kept, with the caveat that it needs further verification, IMO Avi 17:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I knew that someone other than this guy was normally credited with the invention of email, but I couldn't recall his name earlier. 'Twas Ray Tomlinson (who had a working email system when Bowery was just 17). ergot 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote. Is this the internet troll who occasionally posts racist screeds to kuro5hin.org? I have no real interest or non-public resources to verify any more of this, but I can vouch for the existence of someone named "Baldrson" who may hold views such as are described on that site. Whether this makes him notable enough, I have no opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (change vote); he says he's not noteworthy enough for an article: good enough for me. Smerdis of Tlön 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote: (in)famous kuro5hin troll (sometimes interesting). He is one of authors of Javascript framework Tibet [7] (think something of Ajax but w/o the hype) so his technology claims could true. Pavel Vozenilek 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of internet trolls, posters and bloggers, many very prolific and controversial, but readership confined to a few sites or message boards. Doesn't make them notable. Are his career achievements notable enough to deserve an article? No. Fan1967 02:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As with many of the other statements attributed to me, it is a bit of an exaggeration to claim I am "one of the authors of TIBET". As my resume clearly states: "2001 Originated the idea and technical approach for TIBET(tm) method inference and multiple inheritance algorithms." Jim Bowery 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to delete per request of the person. The "author of Tibet" was sentence from my head, I didn't check for exact wording. Pavel Vozenilek 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't think that there has been enough public notariety of my work to justify a Wikipedia article about me. While I view my accomplishments as significant enough and verifiable with reasonably accessible private sources, there are only 2 times I've made it into the mainstream press and only 1 article published by me in a major publication. Jim Bowery 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, why don't you put this on your user page, instead? -- Avi 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is at issue is an article about me, not my WP user page Jim Bowery 02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that he started the article. What he wants to put on his user page is his business. :) Smerdis of Tlön 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. --Pigs Dying 01:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Isn't it time up for a decision? Jim Bowery 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheCampusForum[edit]

Advertisement for message boards which fail to meet the notability guidelines - EurekaLott 01:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Travislangley 06:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Aaron 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Gjc8 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Frühstücksdienst 03:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. VirtualSteve 06:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 17:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. Chick Bowen 04:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous bank robbers and robberies[edit]

No actual content, would work much better as a category. KI 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Valid encyclopedia content. Travislangley 06:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have come to this page often, and I think the content is not only interesting but worthy of sharing. 20:02, 22 February 2006 (PST).
• keep - Among myriads of lists on Wikipedia, this one is as good as many others. Ashish G 02:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This should be expanded - maybe into a table? - but seems interesting to me. I'd kinda like to see a better adjective than just the undefined "famous". At least use the Wikibuzzword, "notable". —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Categories and lists serve different functions. While this list doesn't include information other than names, it has that potential. FYI, Category:Bank robbers already exists. --djrobgordon 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Could be easily expanded and is certainly a notable subject. PJM 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs to be expanded. Frühstücksdienst 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's got plenty of actual content. No reason for deleting the information has been stated.
  • What "actual content" do you see? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Wknight94. Just like he said, this could be put into a table, and the word "notable" is much better than "famous." Notable bank robbers and robberies, perhaps. ♠ SG →Talk 04:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Valid encyclopedic content. Cyde Weys 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless Vote to delete all lists is successful. ---J.Smith 06:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete really interesting topic but Ki is right, there's really no reason why this shouldn't just be a category --Nick Roberts 07:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The problem with deleting all lists and replacing them with categories is that you can't add red links to a category, which means you cannot create more extensive lists. A list itself is information, amplified by the articles it links to.- Montréalais 08:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --Terence Ong 12:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete definitely useful content, but better implemented as a category. I'm not a fan of list pages on WP and it is still possible to view members of a category as a list. StephenHildrey 13:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... shoulc be a category.--Isotope23 14:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm baffled by those who profess to see any "content." This is the perfect example of the list that ought bo e replaced by a category. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Categorify per norm. Cdcon 20:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but put into a category. Duinemerwen 21:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article needs a bit of work, but needs to be kept as it is still valid content. Ridge Racer 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into category Daemon8666 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that it can be useful to have it separated by countries in which it occurred, something I don't think a category can do. --Mathwizard1232 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep interesting, seems notable etc. Georgewilliamherbert 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete. Though there were some votes to merge, all of them suggested that only parts of the article should be merged, and none of them were specific about what parts. So I interpreted the consensus as, "delete unless someone else figures out something to merge;" no one did. Chick Bowen 04:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy on Radiometric dating[edit]

POV fork; should be merged back into Radiometric dating or Radiocarbon dating. Peyna 02:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep i'd want to see if something good can come out of this, the radiocarbon dating article is getting long and a straightforward list and explanation of more famous controversies could be beneficial. Homestarmy 02:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of the articles I proposed for merger are by any means overly lengthy or crowded. Please see WP:POVFork. Peyna 04:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Homestarmy. JoshuaZ 02:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete outright as POV rubbish --DV8 2XL 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It definitely needs a lot of work, but it is a topic that is highly reasonable for an article. JoshuaZ 02:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Merge any relevant info to Radiometric dating. This does not warrant an article by itself. Monkeyman^(talk) 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the title sounds a bit problematic. Move to Controversy over Radiometric dating or Radiometric dating controversy. Bobby1011 02:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing worth merging to Radiometric dating - it's all tired creationist POV straw grabbing. Vsmith 02:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Radiometric dating, cleaning up and making NPOV along the way. Radiometric dating is not too long, and there is some salvagable info in this article.--Gjc8 03:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge examples, but clean up and NPOV. delete Schizombie 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete tired creationist nonsense. Please see talk.origins. Cyde Weys 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Radiometric dating, and edit for NPOV and relevance Delete. I don't have any problem with a note in radiometric dating acknowledging that some people challenge the concept of radiometric dating on the basis of their religious beliefs, which is certainly true, and which is what this is likely to distill down to. Actinide 06:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, delete - given there is no "controversy" as such, no such name should redirect to radiometric dating.Actinide 20:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete - separate controversy articles certainly seem to be POV forks. (At least, when the controversy isn't the main reason a lot of people have heard about it.) Michael Ralston 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete as above. At present it is a mess and should be merged back with a clean up. If the part of the main article begins to get large, it could be considered for rewriting, but under the more POV names suggested above. If a clean up is not done on the merge, delete it. --Bduke 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't vote merge unless you plan on doing the merge yourself. There are over a hundred AfD discussions that end each day; how many of them are merge, and how much effort do you expect the closing admins to put into this? Regardless, there is no salvageable information in the article in question. It's all thoroughly refuted claptrap. If you want to see why it is false, check out here, here, here, et al. Actually the whole talkorigins site is a good reference. --Cyde Weys 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BUT
  • Merge only the paragraph about the nature of the controversy.
  • If final consensus is to merge DO NOT merge with radiocarbon dating. It doesn't belong there. What's missing there is a section on chemical pretreatment of samples to be dated since that's a source of misunderstanding. A radiocarbon date is as good as the dated material. If it has been contaminated by old or young carbon, the date does not represent the historical or geological event ascribed to the sample. What it would be useful is to include, in all dating articles, clear statements about the difference between the dates of minerals in rocks vs the dates of geomorphological formations composed of the same rocks. Jclerman 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unecessary POVfork. Interested parties could merge per Peyna if they are interested in keeping this information.--Isotope23 14:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the "controversies" outlined are misleading. As per Actinide, the radiocarbon dating article should include information on disagreements based on religous beliefs. Cheers, Rickert 19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article does not address its importance and its notability. The article is not necessarily POV (there are claims and counterclaims), but falls dangerously close to violating WP:NOR as it is unclear, from the citations given, how valid each of its points are. Cdcon 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There may be controversy about radiometric dating, but this article doesn't talk about it. Also appears to suffer from an acute case of WP:OWN: "Rebuttle [sic] deleted"? (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This page has no value - it merely refers to sources without presenting any information on this debate. (In addition, religious beliefs do not cause controversy about the accuracy of radiometric dating, although it is worth mentioning that Creationists use these alleged inaccuracies in their arguments.) -- Mithent 22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is hopeless and should be at best a tiny note in radiometric dating. JoshuaZ 22:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BUT I certainly think that the Radiometric dating article should mention the criticisms from creationists - to say "tired creationist nonsense" is obviously not NPOV. It should be (briefly) mentioned, and interested parties can then add their rebuttals, citing references. Camillus (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I lose at about, what 18:1? delete this article already heh. Homestarmy 01:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote, it's a discussion, and AfD stays open for five days. Peyna 04:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as POV fork. And lol. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Radiometric dating. POV forking is not an approved method of resolving disputes. Stifle 00:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to gag-reflex mergists: What do you intend upon merging? The POV original research or the non-notable and contrived examples which don't seem to demonstrate much except that things have occasionally been dated. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Frost[edit]

nn. been in one indie movie (Elephant (film)) Nick Catalano (Talk) 02:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP. Monkeyman^(talk) 02:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: According to IMDB1 he's been in three full length films and two festival-screened shorts. In two of the features, including "Elephant," he received first billing. That's good enough for me. --djrobgordon 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 03:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep, significant IMDB credits. Monicasdude 06:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid IMDB credits. Travislangley 06:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the IMDb.com credits are valid but few; is the subject a truly notable actor? Could quotes from critics be contributed to demonstrate Mr Frost's notability through his performances?  (aeropagitica)  07:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
• Keep Information in article is backed by a verifiable source, meets the verifiability test. (IMBD) --Cymsdale 09:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. IMDB page indicates reasonable filmography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sjakalle and Cymsdale. --Terence Ong 12:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. Chick Bowen 17:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpinnWebe[edit]

Recreation of deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinnwebe, attempts to delete it by speedy means are being thwarted by meatpuppets, perhaps listing on AfD will stop them. --Ruby 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Dysfunctional Family Circus was not just "hosted on SpinnWebe" like SpinnWebe is somesort of free webspace (like geocities). It was designed, hosted, updated, edited, etc etc as a part of SpinnWebe (which now hosts AAA A1 captions in the same vein)JohnRussell 05:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as notable per my comments on the matter before. Spinn has not asked to to do anything in this matter, he doesn't even know me. I am just a fan who has been going to the site for 10 years and it's pop press coverage on the DFC internet meme should be enough to keep it. Also, I don't see a big 'influx' of wikipedia people that have never voted before makeing their thoughts known on this issue, I see mostly people of the wikipedia community who were late in hearing about a vote.JohnRussell 05:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Dysfunctional Family Circus was hosted on SpinnWebe but that in itself does not make it notable. Is there some criteria in WP:WEB that this site meets? Monkeyman^(talk) 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a quick check on Alexa and got 664,000 or so, which is even worse than the 400,000 or so it had when it was deleted earlier this month. --Ruby 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Alexa rank (664,215!), possibly speedy if this is a recreation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that it meets WP:WEB with criteria 1 (Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address) and 3 (The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators). Bobby1011 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial coverage, etc" is an exclusion to Criteria 1 which would indicate you prefer a Delete vote. Your comment is a bit confusing. Monkeyman^(talk) 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How right you are. I misread the criteria. Bobby1011 03:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable per Bobby1011. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as re-creation, unless one of the supporters wants to dispute that it is a re-creation.--Gjc8 02:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many people doing just that below - does that change your vote? DenisMoskowitz 14:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as per Gjc8. Bobby1011 02:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ruby. Monkeyman^(talk) 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not a meatpuppet, and I think we should toss that accusation around less casually. There have been a number of recent AfD nominations of sites that were once extremely notable, but less so lately—this is one, Mirsky's Worst of the Web is another. These are historically important sites for the web, and I think they deserve keeping on those grounds—otherwise, as sites slip into the past, we'll be deleting our communal memory too. There's a difference netween brand-new sites no one's heard of—the situations WP:WEB is really designed for—and once-notable sites that are now history. What's suck.com's Alexa rating nowadays? What will it be in five years? It doesn't matter, it's significant as an important aspect of the web's development. SpinnWebe was once very well-known and even got some mainstream press, but its notoriety was largely in pre-google days and it isn't very well-known now except for the Dysfunctional Family Circus flap. Admittedly, it never had the following of Suck, and the suggestion to merge it into the Dysfunctional Family Circus isn't totally off-base, but on balance I say keep. —rodii 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: For the record, see an "orphaned" debate here. Some of the "meatpuppets" in that discussion, such as Zompist and SchuminWeb, have a solid history of edits in article space. Schuminweb makes a reasonable defense of the removal of the speedy template here. You may or may not agree with his reasoning, but let's assume good faith, please—this is not the usual gang of idiots on some gamer clan board being trotted out to defend teh h0nor of their site. —rodii 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 2: SchuminWeb used a script to rally a get-out-the-vote drive for this second AfD from the following Wikipedians:

• 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rodii (AWB assisted message)
• 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zompist (AWB assisted message)
• 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:DenisMoskowitz (AWB assisted message)
• 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:TreyVanRiper (AWB assisted message)
• 19:02, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:JohnRussell (AWB assisted message)
• 19:02, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spinn (AWB assisted message)
• 18:58, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Notmydesk (top)

--Ruby 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop implying there's something untoward going on here. He alerted interested people who posted on the speedy delete page. I see nothing sinister in that. --Spinn 04:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing implied, other than evidence of my assertion of meat-puppetry and a full disclosure for the admin who eventually closes this AfD, assuming it's not speedied overnight. --Ruby 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should add my name to the list as well, since this page was brought to my attention through a discussion concerning the deletion. Of course, since SchuminWeb does not know me, nor zompist or notmydesk, personally, the accusation of script-use is pretty serious especially when it can be easily disproven. Having an active community, especially consisting of people who have their own extensive entries in Wikipedia, should not count as evidence of untoward behavior, but actually gives credence to the argument that the site does in fact hold relevance. I find it even more ironic that two people involved in this discussion are people who at one point or another had personal run-ins with spinn, yet one of them wrote the article and the other voted for the original deletion. Personally, I see this article not necessarily simply falling under web content, but rather a description of the history of an influential and active home site of an active, influential web personality. While spinn may be no Lawrence Lessig in his Alexa ratings or Technorati listing, his influence on many other personalities like Lore Sjoberg, Zompist, and notmydesk should not be discounted. Maybe it should just be rewritten to be about him instead of referencing his through his home website. --Leth

I'd consider "meat-puppetry" as untoward, if I understand the term. I'm interpreting it as your being under the impression I'm just telling my friends to post in the article's defense. It's especially ironic, since Schumin is specifically not a friend, given the amount of abuse I've heaped on him in the past. --Spinn 05:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain. Per this discussion, I wasn't eligible to vote on the first AfD anyway, since I'm biased. Also, per this edit to my user page, I had no right to comment on the encyclopedic nature of Spinnwebe when my own user page isn't worthwhile for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Elkman 04:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. SpinnWebe's notability under [WP:WEB], footnote 5, might be secured alone by the loving review in The New Yorker (June 10, 1996)— a review of the whole site, note, not just the DFC. The DFC shutdown was covered by, among others, Editor and Publisher, Wired News, The Arizona Republic, MacCentral, the Toronto Sun, and Playboy. Alexa's current rating is irrelevant; the site is an important part of web history. Zompist 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original Afd was rushed through on 5 delete votes (including Elkman who, though having a perfect right to vote, did not disclose his personal interest), and was based on a misstatement (that Spinn wrote the Wikipedia article). This is not a shining moment in Wikipedia consensus. Instead of defending this rush job, calling names, and relying on inappropriate criteria, I'd love to see the Delete people acting like encyclopedia editors and making an actual case.Zompist 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm obviously a bit biased, but I think my logic is sound. For each point:
  • Criteria for inclusion. It meets #1 of WP:WEB. Discussion should really be over at this point. I don't understand why it isn't. (By the way, Bobby1011 said it meets #3 as well, but to my knowledge it doesn't.) Yes, it's because of the Dysfunctional Family Circus, but the articles and interviews aren't about the DFC concept in general, but the SpinnWebe version. When asked in an online chat about "internet parodies", Bil Keane talked about the SpinnWebe version specifically. These are not simple site listings or trivial coverage. These were people from Associated Press and Wired calling me and asking me for quotes. And yes, that's SW's one claim to fame, but there's no requirement that all aspects of the web site be publicized to confer notability.
  • Alexa ranking. Immaterial. Alexa is a research tool, it's not a stated standard for inclusion in WP:WEB. It's a means to determine if it meets the guidelines, but it doesn't matter, the previous point already established it. Besides, what about ground-breaking web sites that no longer exist? They have an Alexa ranking of nothing, should we delete those, too? What's XOOM's Alexa rating? What's The Spot's Alexa rating?
  • Speedy deletion. Yes, the article was deleted, and I understand that. As it stood, a neutral third party could not immediately see the article met WP:WEB. Yes, it was reinstated with identical information--it probably shouldn't have been. However, having been alerted to the issue, I added the detail that brought it under inclusion guidelines. This is all in line with Guide to deletion: If you disagree with the consensus (third paragraph). This article is no longer a candidate for speedy deletion.

So, yes, the site is a shadow of its former glory. But Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. It had glory, with ample (and provided) evidence to support it, and thus clearly meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria. --Spinn 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Spinn above, and if you don't think he's a fair witness, pretend I said it. The site was highly notable in my rememberance of the web nearly 10 years ago (my god it's been that long). If notability is measured substantially against current Alexa rankings and other subjective and moving criteria, then every site will eventually be NN and deletable (save a lot of disk space.). If we get rid of Spinnwebe, let's pitch TOTSE, maybe Suck.com, how about Seanbaby and Old Man Murray, they haven't updated their sites in ages... remember, if a website doesn't consist of 100,000 bored teens and undertasked office workers posing Photoshops, snarky blog entries and belabored in-jokes ad-infinitum it's non-notable. KWH 06:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to see one of the Delete editors come up with an actual argument as to why WP:WEB criteria 1 is not met. KWH 07:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Dysfunctional Family Circus. The tiny details of what his personal Web site featured are unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 07:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete This page was already listed for deletion, the vote was to delete. The webmaster (Spinn) and others associated with the site rallied people to recreate the article (see the number of blank red lines voting in the speedy delete page and this guy apparently just registered to vote in that page [8]). It was recreated almost exactly as it was you can see a copy of the old page here and because it was created almost exactly as it was before it did not have significant improvement and thus qualified for a speedy deletion. I put a speedy delete template and that as well was removed by User:SchuminWeb (as Ruby pointed out, that user also participated in Vote Stacking and many of those voting keep here got his messages see his page history [9]. He has also been accused of vote stacking before see his talk page specifically the comment by User:Gorgan almighty). I did not want to have a revert war so I just left it like that and advised the admin who closed the previous afd about the situation. They also rallied around another page I put up for afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirsky's Worst of the Web) and User:Notmydesk made a snide remark "kids these days..." along with a remark by User:Zompist "According to your user page, you were eight years old when Mirsky created his page. You don't know what was notable then" (by the way, that user put up his own site in another Wikipedia page Zompist.com). Wikipedia is not for ads for websites and trying to break with wikipedia policy to perserve this article is ludicrous. With regards to DFS, even the article itself states that the website did not create DFS. Quote from article "While the Dysfunctional Family Circus concept was not original to SpinnWebe...." so then what is your website notable for?--Jersey Devil 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're not helping your case by mistating things that are easily checked. I didn't create (or in any way affect) the article about my site. And of course it’s no coincidence that people will look at other Afds you are doing. I have nothing to do with Mirsky’s. The comment about your age is a reminder that many of us were around on the web in that period, when you could have no personal experience of what was notable or not. Do you have some other reason that your opinion about the noteworthiness of 1995 websites is worth listening to? As for Spinnwebe's notability, see my points above. Zompist 08:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• First of all, if you're going to argue about whether or not to take down a page, shouldn't you argue based on the merits of the page itself, and less on the people placing votes, or resurrecting a page? You're guilty of argument ad hominem, an obvious logical fallacy. Secondly, I take offense that you claimed I joined Wikipedia only to vote to keep Spinnwebe. You might have noticed my talk page where someone thanked me for my participation in a discussion regarding Citadel BBSes. I only recently created my user page because, frankly, I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia, and frankly, I didn't really want to create my own home page originally, because I don't really think I'm all that important. - TreyVanRiper 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• JD, perhaps the reason people "rallied" against your suggested deletion of Mirsky's page is that you were off-base in suggesting it be deleted, based as it was on a simple counting of yahoo hits and not taking into account anything regarding the history and notability of the site itself -- much as you're doing with spinn's page. And, frankly, if you're going to take me to task for me "snidely" saying "kids these days..." you might want to take a number of others here to task for snidely calling myself and others "meat-puppets."--Notmydesk 16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those viewing this page check out this page on the Spinnwebe Forum "Reinstatement campaign anyone?". [10] I knew this was what was going on, now we have the proof. As a matter of fact, in that thread Spinn says "Well, here's the Google cache version of the page, anyway. It's a shame, I could recreate all this fairly easily, but I think it's bad form if I do it myself.". So it is infact confirmed that they just c&ped back the same old page that was deleted (many sites make copies of old wikipedia pages). It wasn't 'improved' and thus the speedy deletion template was warranted.--Jersey Devil 09:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I won't keep commenting here, but I do want to note a few things: (a) I can't speak for anyone else I resent the implication that I'm here because Schumin "recruited" me. I have zero interest or involvement in SpinnWebe; I read AfD and comment where I have something to contribute—I didn't see Schumin's note until after I commented here. But informing people who have spoken up in a debate that it's continuing in another forum could be seen as a courtesy instead of a conspiracy. (b) Wikipedians have a right to comment, even if they have some involvement in the issue being discussed. Please note that the alleged meatpuppets actually made arguments and didn't just do the usual newbie "Dont Delete our Board you fuckers!" kind of nonsense we often see on AfD. (c) The Mirsky nom is a separate issue, but "kids these days" sounds funny rather than snide to me. Maybe you have to be old to get it. (d) Most importantly, if you read the page JerseyDevil so triumphantly adduces, instead of just his cherrypicked examples, in my opinion you'll see Spinn working fairly respectfully within the Wikipedia process to get his page reinstated. To hold up that page as some kind of evidence of bad faith is just not appropriate. rodii 13:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I had no idea that Schumin has attempted to 'recruit' me. Frankly, this is argumentum ad hominem, and shouldn't influence one's vote. There's a difficult problem here; Wikipedia would want to avoid having a bunch of fanboys jumping on the bandwagon and defending the honor of some po-dunk nothing web site that some idiot posted, but doesn't really belong on the Wikipedia. On the other hand, I would think that the Wikipedia would want to know about an influential web site from the early days, and would want people who are informed about that site (who, most likely, would be that site's fans) to provide credible information about it. This is why I urgently ask the voters to consider the merits of the page based on the page's merits, and not the merits of the people voting for it. Otherwise, you risk turning the Wikipedia into something less than useful. -- TreyVanRiper 14:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn website, if the writer keeps on recreating, protect it. --Terence Ong 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Spinnwebe was extremely well known in the web community for its particular handling of Dysfunctional Family Circus. It found itself targetted by Bill Keane (of Family Circus fame) for a lawsuit on the issue, which Spinn avoided by having a discussion with Mr. Keane, and eventually taking down the Dysfunctional Family Circus itself. As commented elsewhere, if you want to delete this page, you may as well delete a lot of other pages regarding other notable web sites that have come and gone. - TreyVanRiper 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hey, TreyVanRiper (the user who left the unsigned 'keep' vote).....why is it you just created your user page yesterday? [11]? P.S I am aware your contributions go back to mid January 2006. Also rodii, I haven't accused you of anything. I have accused the relatively new posters who came out united to vote in the speedy deletion page.--Jersey Devil 13:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Cry of frustration. Let's look at the "relatively new posters" on that Speedy Deletion page and the dates of their first edits:

Keep votes

Spinn: 19 Jul 2005

TreyVanRiper: 13 Jan 2006

notmydesk: 30 Aug 2005, but that's it until the recent kerfuffle

SchuminWeb: 7 Apr 2005

JohnRussell: 22 Sep 2005

K-Man: only edit

DenisMoskowitz: 3 May 2004

Zompist: 8 Aug 2005

rodii: 25 Dec 2004

Delete or recuse votes

Elkman: 25 Jul 2005

JerseyDevil: 6 May 2005

So it looks to me as if only K-Man, TreyVanRiper and arguably notmydesk really fall into the category Jersey Devil is talking about. But more important, most of those people are actually making arguments about encyclopedicity, whereas you are only talking about meatpuppets and process. A number of your points from the original AfD have been refuted (Spinn being the original author, the author being a "redlink", etc.) and arguments supporting notability have been advanced, and all we keep hearing from you is accusations of bad faith. WTF does it matter when someone created their user page?

I don't really care about this deletion that much--I said above I'd be happy with a merge or even a delete without prejudice. I just think we should get away from the OMG MEATPUPPETS stuff. rodii 15:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies.. I thought I had left the note signed. I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia. This is also why I hadn't created a user page originally: I neither knew how, nor thought myself important enough to rate one. - TreyVanRiper 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

• You voted delete on the original article on the basis I wrote it, yet I did not.
• You're suggesting Zompist should be looked at suspiciously because he wrote his own article, yet he did not.
• Multiple articles in independent reputable sources make it notable. If you have a band that's a one-hit wonder, do you make an entry for the song, or for the band?
• A conversation among friends does not indicate a conspiracy against you. Nyder's comment on my forum is immaterial (she hasn't even been involved in any of this on Wikipedia to my knowledge).
• I edited Mirsky's entry in Sept 2005 so it was on my watchlist; seeing your name come up on my watchlist in another article is also not proof of a conspiracy against you.
• You are taking all of this too personally. I feel anything I say is going to be viewed through a lens of suspicion, not because it's my site, but because you think I'm orchestrating something. If my friends make valid points, why do their opinions become less worthy because they're my friends? --Spinn 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or Speedy Delete. Hey, I wrote the original article (actually, expanded it from a stub). It was a decent article on a marginal-but-probably-acceptable web site. I voted to keep it on the original AfD, which was not heavily populated -- 4-1 against, IIRC, including the nominator. I think its too bad it was deleted. BUT. It was deleted properly in-process, and I think we need to respect that. Whether AfD might need reform (e.g., at least n total responses are required, where n=8 or whatever) is an interesting question but not germane to to this case. We need to stand by the principle of stare decicis or we'll never get anything done. In fact, per the nominator, I don't think this should even be here. It is NOT acceptable for Wikipedia to be bullied into revoking a properly placed speedy by out-of-process deletion of properly formed and placed speedy tags, period. The only correct recourse is deletion review (although technically that is only for correction of out-of-process deletions, and this deletion was done properly). I call on the closing admin to take note of my comments and my standing as author of the original article. Herostratus 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (N.B. and FWIW, the original article was not written by anyone associated with the site, it was written by me solely on my own initiative, and I have no formal association and with the site and know no one who does, although I used to post on the forums in years past.) Herostratus 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote, see below. Herostratus 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's true, I think, that the page was legally deleted. But at least one or two of the delete votes were ill-informed, and some folks knowlegeable about the subject had no idea that there was a vote for its deletion until sometime after the vote had finished. Suppose, for example, that a group of people on Wikipedia decided to choose some obscure topic (e.g. Fugue, the musical form), set up a vote for its deletion, and cause the page to get removed. Because few people knowing anything about Fugues would have noticed, the page would get deleted, perhaps for no good reason. Then, if someone said, "Wait a tic... that isn't right..." and put the page back up, would you still feel that it should remain deleted? - TreyVanRiper 14:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think anyone's bullying; as I said, I think this (third para) was followed properly for its reinstatement (if not right away, at least in summation). Where is the process for removing speedy delete tags, anyway? I wasn't able to find it. The way I read this, I thought it was done correctly. --Spinn 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am not a meat puppet - please take a look at my contributions if you doubt that. The page was re-created after an AfD but has improved since its recreation to the point that it is now a much better article: see the diff between the recreated article and the current one. The section on media coverage of the DFC controversy clearly fulfills point 1 of WP:WEB. I can understand the desire to punish those who recreate after an AfD, but in this case the system is working - the originally AfD'd page was not a good article, but the current one is and should be kept. (That is also why speedy deletion was not appropriate here - it was not simple recreation but actual article improvement.) DenisMoskowitz 14:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment man I gotta stop loading this up... I think JD's right that the speedy delete tag was warranted. Your diff is immaterial; he's talking about the difference between when the article was originally deleted and the current version, because someone simply recreated the article with the same content that was deleted. However, after the call for speedy delete, I took the time to read why it was deleted, did some research on standards, and then brought the article into compliance with WP:WEB. This is clear when it's compared to the current answers.com version that JD links. --Spinn 14:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, first off, this is a recreation of a deleted page, albeit with some additional content. secondly, it fails WP:WEB because I don't accept the argument that Dysfunctional Family Circus confers notability back on SpinnWebe. DFC is notable and has it's own article but in all the referenced material about DFC linked in the SpinnWebe article, SpinnWebe is never mentioned, or just linked to the DFC section of the site. Show me an article in a widely read publication that is primarily about SpinnWebe and I'll recondsider, but based on all evidence provided, SpinnWebe is worthy of a mention in the Dysfunctional Family Circus article and that is about it.--Isotope23 15:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Added a link to an old Internet Underground article. There's a mention in an old issue of The New Yorker, but that's not online; I have a copy at home somewhere, but obviously I couldn't scan it and put it on Wikipedia for copyright reasons. I'll look for it anyway, though, if it'd satisfy your curiosity. --Spinn 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See The New Yorker story referenced above, which is an article about SpinnWebe, not the DFC.Zompist 15:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me some time to verify. I don't read the New Yorker so it's not like I have back issues lying around, but if indeed there is a full page article on SpinnWebe itself in a back issue that is worthy of consideration.--Isotope23 16:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Underground was a print magazine published by Ziff-Davis from 1995 to 1997. Doesn't this already address your concern? --Spinn 16:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, per WP:WEB criteria 1, I would consider this to be a trivial mention (about one subsection of the website: the Nipple Server). I also need to see mulitiple source mentions per criteria 1 (or 1 feature length article in a well known publication would satisfy me as well, even though I don't think this is explicitly stated in the criteria). I need to see the New Yorker article. I'll try to get out to the Library by my house in the next day or so... should have it on file there.--Isotope23 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think you're using too broad a definition of "trivial coverage". WP:WEB appears to mean that as: a press release printed in a newspaper is trivial, a magazine printing a list of sites that start with S is trivial. The article is materially about the site, whether it's a section of it or not. I can demonstrate an article on the SpinnWebe Nipple Server in reference X, an article on the SpinnWebe DFC in reference Y. Non-trivial mentions in reputable print publications. Done.

--Spinn 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you are taking too liberal a reading of "trivial coverage". I consider paragraph blurbs, even if materially about a subject, to be trivial. WP:WEB is a guideline, so it is going to be open to interpretation. Disagreements about guideline interpretations aside though, I think this is largely a moot point since by my count this is currently destined for a No Consensus (default keep).--Isotope23 20:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per rodii and Zompist. I don't know that SpinnWebe would be worthy of an entry if it had only launched in 2004, but it definitely qualifies as a legitimate piece of Internet history. As for the "get-out-the-vote campaigning is bad faith" argument, all I can say is that now that admins are openly engaging in such campaigns on issues as important as Requests for Adminship, even after the seven-day discussion period has closed, I sure as hell can't knock Spinn for doing it here on a lousy AfD. --Aaron 15:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not a meatpuppet, just a loyal fan to a site that should be recognized across the internet. Now that I have seen the true side of you guys running Wikipedia, I don't think your site even deserves to carry a stub about the genuinely historic Spinnwebe.com. Seeing that you guys seem to already have your minds' set on this issue, stubbornly I might add, let me just set the record straight: you're not "Keepers Of The Knowledge" or anything important, you elitist a**holes. You're a backwoods free encyclopedia that will never amount to anything worth remembering in ten years. If you can't follow your own rules, go to hell. --K-Man Time and Date irrelevant.

• LOL, why don't you tell us what you really think K-Man.--Isotope23 16:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been asked to comment on this by both sides of the dispute as the admin who closed the original AfD debate. All I will tell you folks is:
  • Assume good faith.
  • Use common sense.
  • Don't be a dick.
  • Please calm down and look at this rationally. Whether this article is kept or deleted matters very little in the long run. Please exercise good judgement, and avoid votestacking (this applies to both sides). Please do not use the two wrongs make a right fallacy to justify any of your actions. Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. I think my statement "there's nothing untoward going on here" could've been summarized to Assume good faith if I'd known the term. The very statement that started this AfD assumed bad faith. --Spinn 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "A number of unquestionably notable topics have corresponding web sites with a poor Alexa ranking. For instance, http://www.avrillavigne.com had a traffic ranking of 1,261,091 as of January 27, 2006[5], but nobody would question Avril Lavigne easily warrants an article, and its reasonable to assume the site is visited by more people than indicated by Alexa."[[12]] SpinnWebe does not have to have a low Alexia number to be in wikipedia. Plus that is the current Alexa number, not ones over the past 10 years! This is like checking how many play MUDS[[13]] now and removeing the article because of low interest. (ie it is historical)JohnRussell 16:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment (since I'm not arguing deletion based on traffic rankings etc); your argument is apples and oranges. Avril Lavigne warrents an article regardless of Alexa rankings (et al) because she is notable independant of her website (and would be considered under WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. An article on www.avrillavigne.com would probably not survive an AfD though (it would be deleted most likely and content merged to Avril Lavigne. If SpinnWebe were an entity outside of a website, you could apply criteria to that entity that were completely independent of web rankings and other criteria that are traditionally applied to websites. Your point about applying current Alexa rankings in the context of a discussion about the historical value of a site has some validity though, but in that case I would recommend better demonstrating the historical context and value of SpinnWebe in the article.--Isotope23 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For reasons exhaustively stated by several above. The site is a notable part of 'net history and shouldn't be judged by alexa rankings or yahoo hits. Current popularity levels are not relevant.--Notmydesk 17:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Regardless of procedural concerns, the article itself clearly qualifies under WP:WEB for the New Yorker and Internet Underground write-ups alone. --Lore Sjoberg 18:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I apologize if I did violate the "don't be a dick" policy, in particular to Spinn (though in all fairness, others going around make 'snide' comments to me clearly violate 'don't be a dick' and I don't think I was to out of line considering the sheer numbers of users from the site who came to recreated the article and halt the deletion process). However, the fact is that the speedy was improperly removed and the page that was deleted was identical to this one. I'll just wait to see what the outcome of this is. P.S This is the longest afd page I've ever seen.--Jersey Devil 19:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why do you keep saying the current page is identical to the one that was removed, when it is quite easy to demonstrate this is false using the answers.com link you provided? --Spinn 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just mean the one that was c&ped, before you made the new changes. The references make the article look better, the Wired article mentions you and the site but solely in the context of the DFC. It seems that the only notablity that the website really has is regarding the DFC, so why not just merge this article with the DFC article? Or just make Spinnwebe redirect to the DFC page as it already has a lot of info about Spinnwebe's relationship with it. Also, it would help the argument to have a link to the New Yorker piece (though, I understand that since it was created so long ago it would be difficult to find). Simply stating that it was cited in the New Yorker doesn't help because we can not verify it.--Jersey Devil 20:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "the one...before you made the new changes." Then you are arguing a previous version should be deleted, not the current one. Even if I find my old copy of this magazine, I am at a loss how I can present it to you, since scanning it and uploading it to Wikipedia would most probably violate copyright. I (and others) tell you it is there, and if you assume bad faith, then yes, you can't accept it as a reference. Even if I scanned it and mailed it to you personally to satisfy your doubt, then the reference would still hold the same weight for another editor two years from now. I am not sure, then, how any printed, offline material can be taken as a reference. --Spinn 20:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The New Yorker is readily available on a complete DVD set; I have it, and checked the issue in question. It's a short article; but 1. it's the New Yorker, man; how much coverage has Wikipedia gotten in the New Yorker? 2. it's not like it's one entry in a long list; the magazine at that time singled out one website every two weeks for notice. In effect, it's a judgment that it's one of the two dozen notable websites for that year. Zompist 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think SpinnWebe is notable. On the other hand, the Dysfunctional Family Circus article itself completely addresses the importance of the site. Let me come up with an analogy to demonstrate:

Suppose "Weird Al" Yankovic, known worldwide for his numerous song parodies, had instead made exactly one high-profile parody song in his lifetime. Would he get a mention in that song's article? Of course. Would he get his own article? Probably not. Cdcon 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think my previous comment on one-note wonders addresses this. (And the other referenced non-DFC articles make it moot.) --Spinn 20:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Cdcon got it exactly right. As I stated, the Wired article mentions Spinnwebe solely in the context of the DFC. The role of Spinnwebe on DFC is already mentioned in the DFC article. On it's own merits, Spinnwebe alone does not warrant an article. This no longer has anything to do with the process of deletion.--Jersey Devil 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What about the Internet Underground citation? That mentions spinnwebe and the Nipple Server, not the DFC. And the New Yorker article -- though it hasn't yet surfaced here, it has been independently verified and does, in fact, exist -- mentions spinnwebe specifically. Are those just being discounted now?--Notmydesk 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "Recreation of deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinnwebe, attempts to delete it by speedy means are being thwarted by meatpuppets, perhaps listing on AfD will stop them. --Ruby 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)" This seems to me like an editor/admin bias as there is no "organized group" trying to keep it alive, just a lot of people interested in the site and want to see it's article stay because of notability (and giveing good reasons why it should). JohnRussell 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article Spinnwebe was duly deleted by consensus, therefore the re-creation SpinnWebe should be deleted, and if next month there is a Spinn-webe or a Spinwebe they should be deleted too. --Ruby 23:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You are again implying bad faith (as if the name change was some sneaky trick to avoid deletion, rather than a correction). Please stop. --Spinn 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Spinn, why don't you just admit you are the Antichrist!? I heard you assassinated Bobby Kennedy! rodii 23:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endomion, it's good to know that your stated position (that a website with an 11 year history should be deleted as non-notable, regardless of verifiable sources) won't ever be changed by any additional facts, research or other opinions. However, I don't think your position is in harmony with Wikipedia policy or philosophy. KWH 22:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My reason was non-notability for deleting Spinnwebe and it is for re-creating deleted material in the case of SpinnWebe. --Ruby 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Spinn, how does Scribs, your webcomic warrant an article? It was launched less than a year ago and has nothing to do with DFC.--Jersey Devil 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I attempt to keep my annoyance in check, tell me why this is germane in any way to the SpinnWebe AfD. --Spinn 21:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • what the... What does Scribs have to do with anything? I don't see any mention of it here. Is it made of wood? Does it float? Burn him! --innocent bystander
  • Comment Jersey Devil is apparently continuing to confuse this issue with yet more innuendo. Although his inclusion of the link to that page here helped me to find it, so I could vote on it. I have to say, as someone relatively new to all this, I'm finding this particular AfD process anger-evoking, and it will likely influence my condinued participation on Wikipedia. I wish Mr. Devil would focus his efforts on the merits of a page, and less on procedure. This is a fine example of someone who stares at the finger pointing to the moon. -- TreyVanRiper 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I too am finding the continuing innuendo about cabals and conspiracies tiresome, and now going from SpinnWebe to Scribs is looking an awful lot like score-settling. JD, seriously, take a step back, it's only a website. · rodii · 21:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it does meet WP:WEB, and IMHO, being the home of DFC alone gives it a passing grade. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm dismayed that someone thought this was even close to meeting CSD, too. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The CSD made sense at the time. Long story. If you really care, I could tell you elsewhere. But trust me, you don't really care. --Spinn 22:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, the site was known primarily for the Disfunctional Family Circus, and yes, the DFC is no longer around - however, it has other well-known features, especially the webcomic Scribs. I agree that the Scribs article and the Spinnwebe section of the DFC article should be merged with the main Spinnwebe article.Stev0 03:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep KWH below gave enough cites, plus the one in New Yorker -- to meet criteria #1. Articles about web sites in the 1990s? History. Anyways, it's not like we're wasting any paper here. Keep. Sholom 05:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Isotope23. I have (and have read) the New Yorker article in question, via The Complete New Yorker DVD set, and while it does focus on the site as a whole and not just DFC, it is a very short capsule review, and so far as I can tell, the only significant mention of the site in major media that is not about DFC. Let's face it: SpinnWebe was, and is, notable pretty much only for DFC, and DFC has its own, very comprehensive, article. MCB 02:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So we have thoroughly established that the only thing that Wikipedia should tell future generations about this site is that it hosted the extremely notable DFC, is that right? Any other detail of its 11 year history must be expunged as pure advertisement, yes? KWH 04:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This isn't a discussion, it's a circus. I don't see any attempt to build consensus here -- just a lot of back and forth argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of links or a place where everyone should get their particular pet project mentioned. That's why I said the original article was "not encyclopedic": it appeared to be just a page to promote Spinnwebe and to ensure that they're represented on Wikipedia. Since this particular tempest in a teapot has been ignited, the current article on Spinnwebe has actually improved somewhat, to a point where it shows some notability. (Not a lot in today's current Web environment, but the DFC flap makes it notable in a historic context.) I'm not entering a keep vote here -- just urging a little bit of sanity. Otherwise, some administrator will just close this AfD with a result of "no consensus." --Elkman 06:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 23:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

• comment umm, SpinnWebe is not really a webcomic, it is a website. JohnRussell 03:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, but the webcomics wikiproject also keeps track of web sites that host webcomics. It's a borderline case, but it's likely Scribs will get merged into this article, which is why I added it to our tracking. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and while I'm here - very strong keep from someone who's not a meatpuppet. DS 02:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I can't help but notice that the meatpuppets who want this deleted are the same ones who want The Brunching Shuttlecocks article deleted, too. Assuming, of course, they are indeed separate people. Stev0 15:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Someone mentioned it up above, but if a band has a one hit wonder, do you write an article for the song or the band or both? Personally I don't care that much, but it should be one article and the other should be redirect. Reading through these comments, it seems that DFC is the most and possibly only notable thing about the site. Maybe have a section on the DFC page on other works by the same author? - Hahnchen 16:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you mean like these:

1. Los Del Rio - "Macarena" (1996)
2. Soft Cell - "Tainted Love" (1982)
3. Dexys Midnight Runners - "Come On Eileen" (1982)
4. Right Said Fred - "I'm Too Sexy" (1991)
5. Toni Basil - "Mickey" (1982)
6. Baha Men - "Who Let the Dogs Out?" (2000)
7. Vanilla Ice - "Ice Ice Baby" (1990)
8. a-ha - "Take On Me" (1985)
9. Gerardo - "Rico Suave" (1991)
10. Nena - "99 Luftballons" (1984)

JohnRussell 15:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete CSD G4, failing that, Delete. You people have logorrhea. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

I'll propose this as a possible way forward here:

1. Everyone calm down :)
2. We acknowledge that process was, if not outright violated, at least a little bit bent by the recreation of the article
3. We acknowledge that there is at least an argument to be made for the notability of this site
4. The article be deleted without prejudice, and that interested parties be allowed to create a spanky new article (or merge the information into the DFS article if they choose)
5. If the article is recreated, it should be judged on its own merits and not on the history of the current article or the personalities involved

Does that seem feasible? That way the process is respected, but separated from concerns about the encyclopedicity of the information. I realize it's a pain in the ass for those who don't think it should have been nominated in the first place, but it's an attempt to find some common ground. rodii 16:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would resist this, only because essentially the same information would be added and the same discussion would ensue. What you're essentially saying is that "let's consider if the article should be written better." --Spinn 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Spinn's concern but I don't think it's reason to resist. Rodii has accurately noticed that the complaint of the deletionists is primarily "abuse of process" (AfD double-jeopardy, Meatpuppets, etc.); very few have made arguments against its notability. This needs a substantially clean slate. I don't usually hang out at AfD but when I saw this article and deletion debate mentioned on some user page it brought me to the realization that Wikipedia fails to impart much of the richness of the early history of the Web, which I think is a form of systemic bias based on the fact that web content is so ephemeral (and possibly the rise of a younger userbase, which is making me feel old). IMHO DFC, 1-900-ZWEBLÖ and IADL were some of the earliest examples of participatory humorous sites in the vein of Fark, SomethingAwful, etc. SpinnWebe is right there in my own memory with Justin Hall's links.net. (And I'm also amazed to find that so little is written in that article on the "founding father of personal blogging".) As such, Spinn - I think if you check your notes and ask some of your oldest fans to reminisce a bit I think we can find some additional facts and citations which can accurately portray the historicity and notability of this site in a new article. KWH 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. This discussion isn't specifically about whether the article is well-written, but whether it should continue to exist. In my opinion, WP:WEB clearly says yes.

Actually, I take that back. This discussion is specifically about whether there's a Rough consensus to delete, and I think it's clear that there isn't. --Spinn 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Interesting case. Several people, from Jimbo on down, have noted at times that AfD has problems, and this case is a good a example. It is, however, understandable. There is a lot of Wikipedia:vanispamcruftisment produced every day, and people are busy. I second the suggestion the simply delete without prejudice and list on deletion review. Yes that's a pain in the butt and seems like beauracratic niggling. But the thing is, precedent. There are lots of entries of the my web site/my 8-person company/my and my buddies garage band/our 6-member games forum/my boyfriend etc. variety deleted every single day. The last thing anyone wants is for anyone to get the idea that they have some basis for recreating these without going thru deletion review because, hey, SpinnWebe. There is a marginal but valid case for taking this to deletion review. In fact, why wait -- why don't you take the original article to deletion review now? Herostratus 14:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because deletion review is for procedural errors in deletion, and I don't see any. It was originally deleted according to Wikipedia procedure, and again, it was reinstated according to Wikipedia procedure.

I see no risk of creating precedent, either. If My And My Buddies Garage Band was deleted, and then later reinstated with references to its Rolling Stone review, then I see no problem with that. --Spinn 15:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, affiliated with Zompist.com's bulletin board. Wiwaxia 09:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, see my comments above. Leth
• Keep. Changing my vote to Keep.
  1. OK OK OK. This was deleted in-process but I think that it would be valid to list on deletion review, on the grounds that none of the delete votes refuted or even made reference to the Keep arguments, and the Delete arguments consisted mainly of "non-notable, delete". Remember, AfD is not a vote, it is supposed to be a discussion, and the Keep side "won" the discussion, therefore a case could be made that the closing admin erred in not relisting or keeping the AfD open. Even if one holds that only the votes made after the Keep side had completed its arguments could be expected to address those arguments, that brings the "vote" down to 3-1 against at best (including the nominator), and it could be argued that that is not a quorum.
  2. If this were to be listed on deletion review, I think the "keep" arguments would win the day, as (IMO) they have done here. So why go through all that -- let's just consider this thread to be a deletion review, and let the closing admin treat it as such.
  3. OK, yes, the article was deleted in-process (marginally), and yes the speedy-delete tags shouldn't have been removed, and yes this discussion should be taking place at deletion review, and yes this would be a bad precedent. But let's not be total process geeks here, the bottom line is that the article was deleted too quickly more-or-less by mistake and should be kept. As to setting precedent, people are not gonna remember this thread a week from now let alone point to it as a precedent. I think that just this once it would make sense to make an exception. (Perhaps as penance for all this spinn could be sentenced to community service writing the article List of people who have swallowed a live squid or whatever...) Herostratus 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has lots of verification, which makes me wonder why we are even thinking about deleting it. --Tony Sidaway 02:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My proposal was an attempt to find some kind of middle ground between the deleters and keepers. In the event it seems the keepers have carried the debate, and I'm happy to withdraw the proposal. ·  rodii  ·  02:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It has been a week, what is the next action to be taken? JohnRussell 20:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(add new comments above here)

Verifiable Citations[edit]

• Pegoraro, Rob. "CLICK: HTTP://WWW.SPINNWEBE.COM/NIPPLE", The Washington Post, June 19 1997.

The "Nipple Server" sounds like something that should be banned by the Communications Decency Act, but this curious exercise in Web creativity is much weirder than anything our congressbeings could imagine. Every weekday morning, page author Greg Galcik has been aiming a Casio digital camera at his left breast, firing and uploading the image to his site. Viewers are then requested to rate the day's specimen from 0 to 10 on "Color," "Perkiness," "Panache" and the vague category "Overall nipplish quality." (Fortunately -- or unfortunately -- there's nothing that special to see. No wacky piercings or anything.) Galcik explained earlier this year that the site's no big deal to his parents or his wife, as "they know what kind of weirdo I am."

• A capsule review of Spinn's version of DFC, compiled from some wire service, was published in the following newspapers between September 24 and 27 1999:
  • The Kansas City Star
  • Spokesman-Review, The
  • Star-Ledger, The (Newark, NJ)
  • Telegraph Herald
  • Houston Chronicle
  • Journal Star
  • Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
  • Seattle Post-Intelligencer
  • St. Petersburg Times
  • State, The (Columbia, SC)
  • Sun-Sentinel
  • The Cincinnati Post
  • Ventura County Star (CA)
  • Vero Beach Press Journal (FL)

"Family Circus" creator Bil Keane is worried about a less-than- wholesome parody of his kid-friendly comic on the Web. Keane said last week he was mildly amused by the "Dysfunctional Family Circus" when it began five years ago, but then his readers started to complain. The Web site - SpinnWebe, maintained by Greg Galcik - uses Keane's cartoons while allowing site visitors to make up the captions. The results are often sarcastic or dark humor and, predictably, sometimes obscene and pornographic, Keane said. King Features, which syndicates Keane's comic, and Keane's attorney sent Galcik a letter last week threatening legal action unless he removed references to Keane's work.

• Houck, Jeff. "THE TGIF THERMOMETER - DOT.COM", The Palm Beach Post, June 4 1999.

Another review of Spinn's DFC.

• "LOOKING FOR A FEW LAUGHS? TOUR ON-LINE CARTOON SITES", The Charlotte Observer July 9 1996.

Another review of Spinn's DFC, together with reviews of Dilbert and some other early online comics.

• "CYBERSCENE - Aaron' comic strip has its own Web site - Comic `Adventures' wow Web-sters", Boston Herald, May 17 1996.

Another review of Spinn's DFC.

KWH 00:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(don't comment here, add new comments above the beginning of this subsection.)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, no consensus to delete. Chick Bowen 18:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Park Street[edit]

It's a short street in Boston, Massachusetts. That's pretty much it. Delete as street-cruft. Calton | Talk 02:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy per "it does not pass anything of note". lol, that's too good. Monkeyman^(talk) 03:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only reason any Bostonian has ever heard of this street is they've changed trains in the station located beneath it. Fan1967 03:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom --djrobgordon 03:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep wassup with that? we have Bank Street --CyclePat 05:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bank Street? What part of the word "major" in that article escaped you? --Calton | Talk 07:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is every city in every city supposed to get a listing? No way! Travislangley 06:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "The subway stop is one of the most famous in the world.". So why not give it its own article, rather than the street upon which it is situated? Why is it so famous? This article seems a little incoherent.  (aeropagitica)  07:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Common is bounded by Tremont St., Park St.,..." The corner of Park and Tremont has not only the red line but also the tourist shed with all the brochures and a couple friendly tourist welcomers. This corner is the start of the Freedom Trail. So yes, the article bad and Delete is what should be done to it. Metarhyme 08:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the article stands, nothing convinces me it is more important than any random street. I could be convinced otherwise if the article gave me a reason to be interested in it. --Cymsdale 09:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as Bikeable suggests. --Cymsdale 10:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a strip of tarmac is not inherently encyclopaedic. Proto||type 11:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn street. Just any ordinary street, nothing notable nor special. --Terence Ong 13:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Park Street (MBTA station). The street itself is not particularly notable, but the subway station is perhaps the best known in the city. bikeable (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge and redirect. Academic Challenger 23:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as Bikeable suggests (good catch, man!). Most heavily-trafficked intersection in entire Boston subway system; appears in an HP Lovecraft story, too. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - was user test. -- RHaworth 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random Posting[edit]

unencyclopedic DVD+ R/W 02:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Hart-Gilliams[edit]

• Delete - Another of the Melissa Joan Hart family member pages. Her only roles are minor roles in shows related to her half-sister Melissa. In every way non-notable. rydia 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. She does have an entry on Rotten Tomatoes but it is very minimal. Monkeyman^(talk) 03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Frühstücksdienst 03:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She has more IMDB credits than a lot of people listed. Travislangley 06:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four bit parts? Well, son, bring out those other articles with fewer credits and I'll AfD them right away.
• Delete Wikipedia is not IMDB Lite. --Calton | Talk 07:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 13:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not IMDB Lite - lol. 13:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 00:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Parkinson[edit]

Delete. It's a vanity page... not needed in the Wikipedia Walksonwalls 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable bio. Bobby1011 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. Monkeyman^(talk) 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable. VirtualSteve 06:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Doesn't this article discuss two different people of the same name? How can someone be an academic in Yorkshire and run a computer shop in Cornwall simultaneously? Why would an academic need to do this? In either case, the biography(-ies) appear to be non-notable.  (aeropagitica)  07:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn-bio and vanity. --Terence Ong 08:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, two non-notable biographies. JIP | Talk 12:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ewa Sonnet[edit]

I don't know. Just doesn't seem as notable as the article would like me to believe. James084 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn. Monkeyman^(talk) 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1,200,000 google hits. Must be notable in some context Bobby1011 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bobby and her seven incoming links from articles not created by the same person. NickelShoe 03:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Please note that porn producers and promoters spam search engines, thus skewing any results in the favor (and, by extension, rendering the Google test impotent). If you would note this search using the term "Ewa Sonnet" (with quotes), you shall see that Google only goes up to 500 (out of 770,000+!) search results, deeming the rest to be duplicates! And most of the "valid" results were nonsense without any true substance. you will see that a good chunk of the links are web cruft without substance. However, as I said, most porn producers create dummy websites to puff up the importance of their "product". For instance, sites may have meta tags with "Ewa Sonnet" in them, without having anything to do with that subject. While I thank Adrian for the correction, my vote shall stay the same. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC) -- Stricken by Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} at 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as per Joe Beaudoin. Bobby1011 03:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Comment: The rest are not duplicates. Google also only goes up to 500 or so for Microsoft. It's just the way it works, and has no real bearing on the remainder of the results, for your purposes. Please, please, pretty please, stop citing this at AfD : ) . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sigh Ok, then. Now that I believe that I am informed about what I am saying, keep it. Thanks Adrian. Bobby1011 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep , I suppose. Per Adrian. Cyde Weys 04:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No more notable than those hot teenage cheerleaders who are always emailing me. Monicasdude 06:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 08:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable within the genre. 23skidoo 15:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the Google test is skewed for porn, then it's skewed for anything else that gets link-farmed. That's a pretty slippery slope that you want to shove us down. - CorbinSimpson 03:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per 23skidoo --Godtvisken 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per 23skidoo --GenericTSS 00:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. New material added which increases the richness of the subject considerably. briankaz 16:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Keep Noteable within the porn industry, especially within her specific genre. There are other well known porn stars on Wiki, this one is no different. She also has a music career which equally deserves a Wiki entry. The359 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although I can't think of any real reasons to keep it, other than further broadening the knowledge base, I do know that "I don't know...just seems...like me to believe" are pretty limp wristed premises for any arguement. I'd hate to see any worthwhile contribution thrown to the wayside by such a weak argument. Dodint 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Keep She is far from a normal internet pornstar. She is at worst a nude model, and has not performed or pretended any sexual acts for stills or video. Her budding singing career somewhat parallels the progression seen by other models who have seeked to become more, and she has already been featured in major mainstream Polish media. Dismissing her now for no good reason is a bit absurd.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.246.87 (talk • contribs)

• Strongly Keep She is far from a normal anything. She is one of a kind. Don't be distracted by the boobs! We have yet to see even close to the full range of her talents. briankaz 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - she has a music video. It is hard for USians/UKians to judge some criteria at WP:MUSIC but per this page she has been interviewed on "best known and most popular Kuba Wojewodzki Show. It's gonna be seen by over 4 million people o next sunday at 10:25 pm of Polish time at the biggest Warsaw private TV station" which would seem to come close to "Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio [TV?] network." KWH 03:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep. Seems somewhat notable per WP:MUSIC. Page needs serious work, however. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athens Hardcore[edit]

Deprodded. I vote Delete for being a non-notable, self-explanitory neologism.

• Delete Obvious nelogism. --djrobgordon 03:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. It isn't even an neologism to my way of thinking. Bobby1011 03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless. Travislangley 06:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't appear to discuss a musical movement, fans thereof or anything else of note.  (aeropagitica)  07:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable neologism, no meaningful content. And it isn't even in Athens. JIP | Talk 12:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, yeah because Socrates did not do too well when he was with Bill and Ted. Yeah, non-notable. Croat Canuck 04:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brunching Shuttlecocks[edit]

Defunct humor website that does not claim any recognition or awards, and it is now impossible to verify traffic --Ruby 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as the notability is almost impossible to gauge making it unverifiable. Bobby1011 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Frühstücksdienst 03:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable humor site. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it was exceptionally notable in its time. Although some digging needs to be done to provide verification of this. Proto||type 11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real humour site, I used to visit this a lot. JIP | Talk 12:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this was notable when it was around. Consider seeing if anything is preserved at Internet Archive. Thryduulf 12:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there's lots. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.brunching.com indeed has a bunch of stuff. Good call Thryduulf. Proto||type 13:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to use the Internet Archive, the Brunching site itself still has full archives. DenisMoskowitz 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable humour site, with notable offshoots. Possibly merge offshoots into this page, though. Percy Snoodle 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable site. DenisMoskowitz 15:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending a complete top-to-bottom rewrite. I agree it's a piece of notable net history, but the article as it stands is in essence a List of old Brunching Shuttlecocks section names with some spamvertising tossed in at the bottom. --Aaron 16:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest be added? I added a note about the publication of the Book of Ratings. I could put in some claims about "everybody knew about this site back in the day" but that's not very verifiable. (Though the fact that 3 years after closing it's still the top Google hit for both "brunching" and "shuttlecocks" is some indication of how heavily it has been linked to.) DenisMoskowitz 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, undoubtably notable. I still remember half the lyrics to the Bjork song. — ciphergoth 17:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is not impossible to verify traffic. See [14], which compares traffic of Brunching Shuttlecocks with Modern Humorist, a humor site of similar popularity that has a Wikipedia article. Nohat 17:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 21:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Highly notable site. Random House made part of it into a book[15]. I'd call that recognition.--Notmydesk 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, it spawned a message board that is still very active. — User:Serendipity 05:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Leading humor site in its day and still available as archive even if not being updated. If this article did not exist, articles on the current careers of Lore Fitzgerald Sjöberg and Dave Nielsen would have to reproduce the same material. Sergeirichard 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it might be gone now but in its day was definitely notable. Deserves an encyclopedia entry. -Big Smooth 00:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, yup, as so many others here say, this site clearly was famous and influential. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: IIRC, I originally found out about the website after reading about it in Newsweek. Ardric47 01:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ciphergoth. Ooh Bjork, Bjork.... ♫ squell 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The site is still readable (and enjoyable, in my pov); it spawned other sites like bookofratings.com. To delete it because it isn't being added to is like deleting the article on Shakespeare because he isn't writing any new plays. Stev0 03:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: one of the absolute top comedy sites of its time. And since the current anti-website crusaders like to pummel sites with Alexa, note that it's still in the top 100,000 today, three years after it stopped updating. Zompist 21:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per notmydesk. Or were you created from butter and cork? · rodii · 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It was very noteworthy at the time, and the entire archives are still available, though the search engine seems to be broken. Maverick 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep though I'm biased, Lore being a friend of a friend. Georgewilliamherbert 20:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though I'm biased as well. I gave Lore a ride to an ATM once. --Elkman 04:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fairly notable when it was active, IIRC. Herostratus 05:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hbackman 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer jargon[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst

• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I don't know of any more useful list articles on the Wiki. This AFD nom puzzles me, sad to say. PJM 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is very useful and encyclopedic content. Cyde Weys 04:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide, then this has to go. Travislangley 06:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup This article discusses acronyms such as ENIAC, which form part of computing history alongside RTFM, which is computer slang. The article might be more useful if the two could be seperated in order to make it clear precisely what is being discussed.  (aeropagitica)  07:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename as a Glossary and rewrite to match style of some existing glossaries on Wikipedia, which is clearly authorized at WP:NOT - and to Frühstücksdienst... it's more like vice-versa. I can't imagine that you are not being purposely facetious with that comment. Our goal with Wikipedia is to create something useful, not to see how closely we can follow policy. You're completely backwards. KWH 03:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A list of computer jargon is not a definition, nor is it slang or idiom. If there are disputes about what does, or doesn't belong in the article, they can be resolved on the discussion page. Such a list is useful and violate no wiki policy. pat8722 14:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft... transwiki to wikisource if anyone is interested in keeping this content and link it off the Computer article.--Isotope23 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the intent of "not a slang or idiom guide" is that we not become Urban Dictionary. This doesn't push us any closer. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eskog: misinterpreting WP:NOT. — squell 02:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as with all jargon AfD's I've seen lately. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the others. Who uses Wiktionary? Not me. I wouldn't know this was there. Calsicol 13:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody suggested transwikiing this to Wiktionary. I do agree with others that WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide was mis-applied in the nom's rush to make a WP:POINT by listing all of these jargon guides. It should be noted (to pat8722 and others) that WP:WINAD prohibits not only dicdefs, but lists of such defs. I think KWH's idea of cleaning this up into a gloassary is sound, but don't think a transwiki to wiktionary would hurt anything. No vote. --Karnesky 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup as the subject of computer jargon is perfectly acceptable, but the current contents and scope of the article are not. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep assuming it gets a major cleanup. If it doesn't get cleaned up, I recommend a Computer Jargon category.

Stev0 12:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Acronyms are not really slang or idioms — Michigan user 17:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball jargon[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as useful reference as decided three months ago. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. A useful and well established article. PJM 04:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - And maybe the guideline should be changed for eminently notable exceptions. Cyde Weys 04:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As I said before, likely nominated by someone who hates baseball. Wahkeenah 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That one user, with the German name which roughly translates as "Breakfast service", has marked several of the Jargon pages the same way, so evidently he wants to make toast of these pages. In fact, since August he/she/it has contributed nothing [16] except requests for deletion. Wahkeenah 12:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I mainly edit under another name, since I don't want to get into deletion wars. Frühstücksdienst 14:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reckon you deserve some points for admitting to being a sockpuppet. Wahkeenah 15:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for violation. This should be a CATEGORY, not an article in and of itself. Travislangley 06:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously useful glossary. Change the policy. Bhoeble 11:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep An essential part of Wikipedia's coverage of baseball, or of any other sport with lots of terminology (which is probably all of them). ReeseM 12:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I say you are picking on these things for personal reasons. Wahkeenah 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft. Transwiki to wikisource and link to baseball if anyone is interested in keeping this content (and I think it is useful content; just not encyclopedic article material).--Isotope23 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Who says what is an encyclopedia? I say this is a valuable part of encyclopedic coverage of baseball. Golfcam 23:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful for people like me who don't know about baseball. squell 01:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Transwiki Baseball Slang should be added to the list, but the whole thing is better suited to be a Wiktionary *

appendix. --Karnesky 06:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the others. Who uses Wiktionary? Not me. I wouldn't know this was there. Calsicol 13:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I responded on another AfD, we can make interwiki links. Any wikipedia article which referenced this would still point to the article on Wiktionary. It would be just as useful there, and may be a better fit with the intent and policies of that wiki than this one. --Karnesky 17:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, honestly, the information is useful, encyclopeadic, and better done as a collection that as individual articles. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball jargon[edit]

Nomination on the grounds that this is a slang or usage guide, in violation of WP:NOT. While an article about baseball jargon as a whole is acceptable, this is a list of jargon terms, not an article about the jargon as a whole. Note that the exceptions in WP:NOT 1.2.3 only apply to clarifying meaning when jargon is used in an article about something else (not the case here) or "special cases" about "an essential piece of slang" (not the case here) don't protect it. Informative and interesting, certainly (at least to some people), but that is not enough to excuse the fact that this is a list of definitions, not an article. The Literate Engineer 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Seems like a spiteful nomination (or at least done purely out of principal), as I cited this basball article article as an example in another AfD discussion. Sorry baseball fans... I had no idea it would get this reaction. As for why to keep this article... it falls clearly under WP:NOT 1.5.2 which allows for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. This provides extensive commentary and more importantly links to many baseball articles, and it cleraly helps to organize them. I guess I'll stop citing articles I actually care about as examples... --W.marsh 00:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I accept that this wasn't done out of spite thanks to communication from the nom. --W.marsh 01:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that communication anywhere here. How's about posting it so we can see what this wiki-nanny's reasoning was, and why he thinks this is less encyclopedic than lists of Penthouse Pets? Wahkeenah
    • It's on my talk page and his. But please don't make personal attacks... The Literate Engineer just happens to have a different opinion than me (and apparently you). --W.marsh 02:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, he personally attacked this page, so he has it coming. I'd like to know why he thinks this page is any less worthy than the others I've mentioned. But I don't expect an explanation, because their type also deems the rest of us to be part of the Great Unwashed. Wahkeenah 02:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It's got to be a nomination by someone who hates baseball or regards it as unworthy. Why pick on baseball and not attack lists of Playboy Playmates and other such "encyclopedic" data??? Wahkeenah 00:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. An excellent article. Durova 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks like a useful article to me. --Bachrach44 03:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. WP:NOT 1.2.3 is in my opinion to stop articles on singular slang terms, not for lists like did. - Andre Engels 08:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andre Engels. Useful list. It helps writing baseball articles considerably easier because now some terms can be used without repeatedly explaining them. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments Herostratus 02:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep useful to baseball fans and those who want to understand them --Rogerd 15:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical jargon[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. No offense to nom. This subject goes way beyond simple slang and is a well established article. PJM 03:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is neither a definition, nor is it about slang or idiom. It is a useful index of mathmetical jargon. Non-topic competent editors should know better than to make proposals for deletion, or to vote thereon. I would ask you to retract your votes on the basis that you are not topic-competent. pat8722 03:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Mathematical jargon is more than simply an idiosyncratic verbalization of otherwise expressible concepts; it is the means by which mathematicians express those concepts at all. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary, in particular the exception enunciated in point 3. I also second pat8722 regarding the lack of evidence that either Frühstücksdienst or Hetar has any mathematical expertise. In fact, both of them seem to specialize in participating in or initiating AfD proposals more than anything else. Ryan Reich 04:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep --Terence Ong 05:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, speedy keep per remarks above. Very useful, verifiable, and encyclopedic. dbtfz^talk 05:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I am tempted to speedy keep this, the rules as I interpret it do not allow it. However, it seems from comments here that this article is very useful to the mathemeticians amongst us.Capitalistroadster 05:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete for violation. This should be a CATEGORY, not an article in and of itself. Travislangley 06:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the listings don't merit their own articles, so a category won't do, in my opinion. Plus we already have Category:Mathematical terminology. dbtfz^talk 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as per Ryan Reich's reasons above. Gandalf61 09:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article could do with some expansion (something on origins would be good, for example, but we need to avoid original research of course) but has potential. Waggers 09:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looking at all these "not a dictionary" AfDs looks like Wikipedia is occasionally a slang/idiom guide. Not making a value judgement here; just noting that maybe the official policy is somewhat lacking in its spirit or wording. Weregerbil 16:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely unsourced and thus not verifiable. The statement that these particular phrases are not technical terms but are designed to "distinguish the insider from the neophyte," currently rests entirely on the authority of the article's editors. Because it is unsourced, it is difficult for the reader to verify which entries are accurate. For example, I say that "back-of-the-envelope" is an example of an inaccurate entry; it is used by physicists and engineers, not mathematicians. But since no source is given, you have no way to judge whether I, or the article, is the more trustworthy. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a claim's being unsourced implies that it is unverifiable. It seems to me that missing sources are a ground for improving the article (e.g. by adding sources), not deleting it. Claims like "mathematicians use iff to mean if and only if" are easily verifiable, even if they are not currently sourced. Moreover, some things are so easily verifiable that it seems downright silly to source them. For example, if I state in an article that Washington D.C. is the capital of the U.S., do I really need to provide a source for this claim? In short, it seems that there may be a risk of being over-vigilant about verifiability requiring claims to be sourced, to the point of actually decreasing the quality of Wikipedia. dbtfz^talk 19:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corrected my own words: I don't think we can be over-vigilant about verifiability, properly understood. dbtfz^talk 20:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The verifiability policy says "This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." It is the source that is verifiable, not the truth of the claim. The policy says "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source." Obviously if you have not cited any source at all, then you have not cited a reputable source.
      • You should sign your comments. The verifiability policy is also clearly not talking about jargon, but about "facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments", which do not include jargon. There exists a style guide encouraging definitions of jargon terms, as I mention below, and pretty clearly implies that the jargon is considered as auxiliary to the main encyclopedic content. If you like, you may think of this page as the collection of all explanations that would otherwise have to be inserted parenthetically into all the other math articles when these terms, which only mathematicians understand, are used. And if they were inserted there I doubt you would ask for them to be sourced. Ryan Reich 07:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The verifiability of this article, which concerns a topic of broad, common knowledge to those for whom its subject is interesting or useful, is in the assent of its readers to the claims it makes. For such topics a source is unlikely to be found, yet the verifiability of common knowledge is not in doubt (as long as it is presented by a member of the group to which it is common). Using the same principle you invoke, one could argue that no clarification of documented fact is acceptable in the encyclopedia. This page documents clarifications of terms that can be found in virtually every mathematical document published in the last century (in English, anyway). It is a reference, not an opinion piece. Ryan Reich 01:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where, in the verifiability policy, does it say anything like "the verifiability of common knowledge is not in doubt (as long as it is presented by a member of the group to which it is common?" Where does it say that anything in Wikipedia can stand solely on the authority of its contributors? The policy says "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source" and calls the policy "non-negotiable" and says it cannot be superseded "by editors' consensus." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you ask, it states in Wikipedia:Explain jargon that we should do just that: explain jargon. It does not mention the necessity of rigorously citing sources for the jargon, and I interpret this to mean that the intention of the policy is to encourage authors to define terms which are not standard English but which are standard in the context they are used, according to the authors' understanding of the usage. In fact, it encourages the creation of an article such as this one. Ryan Reich 06:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the intent of "not a slang or idiom guide" is that we not become Urban Dictionary. This doesn't push us any closer. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - DavidWBrooks 00:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful and relevant. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP. Dmharvey 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as useful, relevant and encyclopeadic. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 12:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That being said, Dpbsmithb has a point. The intro makes claims which match my graduate school experience. I believe that the same can be said of almost any English-speaking mathematician; but I don't know it. I don't see how anyone can know it without having talked to a sizable and random sample. Let us either find a sociologist of mathematics who has done the necessary research, or edit to what we rigorously know. Septentrionalis 03:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poker jargon[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: You misterpret the rule here; it is meant to keep wikipedia from being cluttered with individual entries about words that aren't of general interest. But a single article on the technical jargon of a specific field of study is entirely appropriate and useful, and indeed necessary for many fields. LDC 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Highly notable and useful to many. PJM 03:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not about slang or idiom, it's about public information on a topic of interest to many. pat8722 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not a slang or idiom guide. --Terence Ong 05:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 06:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per PJM -- Arnzy | Talk 08:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful glossary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the intent of "not a slang or idiom guide" is that we not become Urban Dictionary. This doesn't push us any closer. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wiktionary. --Karnesky 06:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful and relevant. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Strrange nomination as the cited passage clearly states such a page is useful. Obviously the article also allows us to not have dozens of minor articles on concepts that otherwise can be better explained in a context. 2005 09:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Highly useful. And. There are many many pages like it on Wikipedia. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - incredibly useful page, also highly referenced (see What links here). Essexmutant 10:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the others. Who uses Wiktionary? Not me. I wouldn't know this was there. Calsicol 13:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It's a very handy guide.--Mike Selinker 16:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per LDC. Many of the terms explained in this article are used in other articles on Wikipedia. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep this is an article about poker jargon with lots of examples, not many articles about individual poker terms. —siroχo 11:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- MSchmahl 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a useful index to poker players. Hynca-Hooley 18:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, though there does seem to be a general feeling that something should be done, such as a merge or a partial transwiki or something. -Splash^talk 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball slang[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It's a huge slice of culture and the article is well established. PJM 04:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stop misusing WP:WINAD. Cyde Weys 04:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: I like this article. It's cute and informative. To the point. I however wonder if it should not be a candidate for transwiki to wiktionnary? --CyclePat 04:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

should it be merged with List of baseball jargon --CyclePat 05:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The nominator does not seem to be misusing WP:WINAD but applying it appropriately. The problem seems to be with WINAD itself, which needs further explanation. If wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide, if wikipedia is not a dictionary, why are lists such as these appropriate on WP rather than being moved to Wiktionary? It seems to be because there will usually be enough people who will vote keep, regardless of the policy. I'll also add that I don't understand the difference between List of baseball jargon and Baseball slang; I take it there is one, but it could use further explication. Schizombie 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe the distinction here is that List of baseball jargon deals with more-or-less the argot or "technical terms" (if you will) within the sport itself; Baseball slang deals with those said terms that have crept into common usage as idiomatic expressions, no longer necessarily having anything to do with baseball. SigPig 13:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Terence Ong 05:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a non-fan of baseball and looking at the two articles, could baseball jargon and baseball slang not be combined? There seems to be little to differentiate the two at the moment. I think that this article discusses the effects of baseball jargon on American English - and through the mass media on other forms of English too - so perhaps if they can't be combined this could be cleaned up to make clear that is isn't discussing baseball as such.  (aeropagitica)  07:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or alternatively merge to List_of_baseball_jargon. -- Arnzy | Talk 08:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of baseball jargon. It shows an alternate usage for some baseball jargon outside the sport. Else, move Transwiki it to Wiktionary; I think the info is worth keeping, even if not here. SigPig 13:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft. Transwiki to wikisource and link to baseball if anyone is interested in keeping this content (and I think it is useful content; just not encyclopedic article material). If the keepers insist on retaining this as a list, merge it with List of baseball jargon jargon or vice versa; no reason to have two lists that could be combined into one.--Isotope23 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC
• Merge to List of baseball jargon OsFan 20:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and this may be WP:IAR more than anything, but I find the content useful, informative, and distinct from baseball jargon. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• At minimum, merge to list of basebal jargon. Preferably, transwiki both to the wiktionary. --Karnesky 06:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and what's with the flow of jargon-related AfD's lately? — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of these were all nominated by the same self-confressed sockpuppet. Possibly for a WP:POINT. These lists are useful (though possibly would be better on Wiktionary & I wish that the nom used Template:Move to Wiktionary or similar instead of the AfD-fest. There's no way these will all be deleted. --Karnesky 07:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the others. Who uses Wiktionary? Not me. I wouldn't know this was there. Calsicol 13:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could have an interwiki link to the wiktionary article, so you WOULD know it was there. --Karnesky 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tony the Marine 06:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge To the list of baseball jargon
• Transwiki to Wiktionary (specifically, to a Wiktionary Appendix) and delete from Wikipedia. Replace any links in Wikipedia with cross-wiki links. Rossami (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reached this decision by noting that all of the KEEP votes, with the exception of the first, were made by users with accounts that were either less than 2 weeks old or appear to have only been used recently in edits related to this discussion. Anybody that's a member of a group would logically try to prevent this article from being deleted, but after looking through the article myself, while it's a VERY well-written article that you should all be proud of (it's better than 99% of the schlock that gets fed through AFD), it's unfortunately not notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Mo0[talk] 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elite_Roleplaying[edit]

non-notable gaming community TheOneCalledA1

• Delete per nomination. Frühstücksdienst 03:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. Bobby1011 03:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd hate to delete a page that looks like it took such effort, but wikipedia is not a personal web space for individuals or groups. --Cymsdale 10:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I'm removing my delete recommendation; I'm on the fence on this one. --Cymsdale 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 12:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ick next we will get Star Trek clans..... Williamb 12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Percy Snoodle 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, but offer them a userfy. Someone spent alot of time on that.--Isotope23 15:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Understandable arguments, but being one of the main people who created this, I have to agree to keep it, no offense intended. Elite Roleplaying itself is a large RPG group with 3 divisions and a defined governmental system. It may seem minor, but it has been involved in the Star Trek Voyager Elite Force community (and the Star Wars Jedi Knight Jedi Academy community, but not for so long) and has gained quite a history with a great amount of members (probably around 200+). Now, look at an article like Bravo Fleet. Bravo Fleet is a Star Trek SIM group, just as ERP is except with the inclusion of in-game RPG and a Star Wars division. We have and have had a large member database just as Bravo Fleet, and there is even more valid information that can be included in the ERP article than the Bravo Fleet article. The Elite Roleplaying article isn't small but very detailed with some very interesting information on a group that has been active for about 5 years. While creating this article, I also avoided the use of personal POV, I respect neutrality in articles. I also greatly contemplated whether this article would be nominated for deletion, as it is being done right now. I made this in a way to avoid being an advertisement, but to be informative and interesting, I even had assistance by a great number of people in retrieving proper information to make sure all was complete. If Bravo Fleet can be kept, I think Elite Roleplaying should be kept. If this article is deleted, then the Bravo Fleet article should be discussed as well. Thank you for your time. - Enzo Aquarius 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, sounds like a good argument to start an AfD of Bravo Fleet...--Isotope23 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A poll was already done for the deletion of the Bravo Fleet article, a non-consensus was declared. Many of the arguments that contributed to it are most likely what is involved in the decisions for the deletion of this article. As another note of 'interest' per se, this article was not meant for advertisement. We (the group) felt that we had an adequete amount of valid information that could be added to Wikipedia. Elite Roleplaying isn't just 'another Star Trek clan', we distinguished ourselves in our communitys (we aren't even a clan actually) and were able to grow due to a successful and dedicated memberbase. Even as we speak, further expansion plans are being created. Elite Roleplaying isn't just a 'Star Trek clan'. - Enzo Aquarius 13:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It seems fairly obvious that this organisation is large enough and with a rich history in the development of roleplaying (especially given links with Destiny's Wind "ERP's Sister Star Trek Project.")to dispute the initial reason given for deletion. A non-notable gaming community? The sister project of Destiny's Wind? I'm afraid that the initial reason given is in no way justified. There is nothing to support such an arguement. - Helios 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please assume good faith (WP:FAITH) and refrain from making unsupported accusations about people's identity or intent.--Isotope23 20:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Apologies, no offense was intended. Just felt that the article had more dubious reasons behind it's call for deletion. Again, my aplogies..--Helios 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Oh god, dont get the entire wikipedia community on an problem that is nobodys buisness. I am TheOneCalledA1. I am not "Digi". Please dont bring this argument here too. On the next note, so, does this mean that an article on the longest lasting Star Trek Community/Clan deserve an article too? It would have just as much right to as Elite Roleplaying does.TheOneCalledA1 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see why it should be deleted? The article refrains from PoV's, it adheres to a strict non-advertising and purely informative stance. It is in no way being used as a 'personal webspace'. Elite Roleplaying is an organisation that has been around a long time and has a large and rich history with regards to Elite Force Roleplaying and the sister project of Destiny's Wind. Why should it be deleted? All you have done is compared it to a fairly irrelevant example. Please can you give something more direct? Does it break any particular rule? Does it act in a manner that it deserved to be deleted? The non-notable tag really can't be justified in this particular situation. Elite Roleplaying is not a 'Star Trek clan'.-Helios 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Can't justify reason for deletion The group has too much of a history in EF RPing, it's links with Destiny's Wind and that it's a well known group with a large member base in the EF RPing community. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Achives nothing through it's deletion.--Helios 12:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ERP Was the forerunner to a very popular trend of gaming within the Elite Force community, and many of its ideals and practices have spread to others, ERP Is not using wikipedia to advertise itself, The article is a very well drawn up and informative peice of information concerning a large part of the history within the elite force community. ERP is not a clan, it is a group of people who started out with one goal, and acheived it. The wiki article is not an advert, and is not harmful In any way that I can understand. What saddens me most is I beleive the issue was drawn to your attention by someone who is not concerned for the integrity of wikipedia, but by someone who outlawed themself from the ERP community by causing major disruptions, and I personally beleive that this is more of an act of revenge than concern for the misuse of wikipedia webspace. The article is Completely factual, and very well constructed, There are many outside of the ERP community who could speak for its integrity, and recognise what it has acheived over the years. --Merrick

Comment - We strive to have an enjoyable experience with our peers and colleagues in a roleplaying environment, it's not about greatness but about working with great people. We work together well in our community, and this article also reflects that, we got together to make an article on a topic we felt was valid for Wikipedia, we did not use personal bias, we did not make an advertisement article and we made it very informative. There are also a number of edits by those that aren't even Elite Roleplaying with no complaints from them. Thank you for your time. - Enzo Aquarius 02:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-I withdraw my last comment. The ERP people have put a lot of time into this page, and it's a shame to squander that.

--Cronin

• Keep - Ok, I'll list and rebut the sections I believe it is felt that the article fails on. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." I don't believe this is breached, as the article maintains NPOV throughout. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. Again, as far as I can see, the article is indeed written in the aforementioned objective, unbiased style, and therefore does not breach this, either. ERP is also verifiable by most of the RPG community of Elite Force and Jedi Academy. As such, I believe it should be kept. -- Berle
• Keep This doesn't violate any rules, and was formatted neutrally... No need for deletion Legovan (Millen)
• Keep I agree, I haven't seen any rules that this article violates. -- GMoney 19:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please take note, that several of the people who voted are actualy Elie Roleplaying members. TheOneCalledA1 02:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Further Comment - A good number of these people helped me make the article or contribute too, as I said, it was a community effort and is thus the works of many. - Enzo Aquarius 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Further Comment - I'm not a member. - Cronin
• Further Comment I didnt say that all are. I said several. Theres atleast two ERP members who voted to keep, who havent made any other edits except their userpages and this.

TheOneCalledA1 21:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuchullain (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: Speedy Deleted as a non-notable group. --InShaneee 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bear (band)[edit]

I put a speedy delete tag on it but it was removed. Non-notable band. Blank page on allmusic.com. Ifnord 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Ifnord 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as vanity. Bobby1011 03:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Dioquino[edit]

I placed this on Proposed Deletions on 20 Feb. An anon user removed the tag (twice-another user reverted the first time) without explanation or further changes to the article. As it stands this article does not meet any of the criteria at WP:BIO—delete. JeremyA 03:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable. --Hetar 03:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: doesn't claim notability. --Sneftel 04:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delte as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 05:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  07:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quiet mind[edit]

Non-notable and likely vanity/spam - the article and the user who created it share the same name.

• Delete. Thenugga 03:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencylopedic, not noteworthy, vanity or advertizing. Whatever you want to call it, it doesn't deserve an article. Bobby1011 03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn, vanity, spam, etc. dbtfz^talk 05:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another podcast advert? No discussion of notability in article.  (aeropagitica)  07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doomsday argument says the podcast won't meet the 100 year test... among other reasons. --Cymsdale 10:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity per nom. --Lockley 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 21:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Police Department[edit]

Wikipedia is not the Phone book. This Police Station is not notable. Bobby1011 03:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Article is primarily an organization chart and phone book. Oscar 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the police departments of major cities are usually politically controversial, and the histories of such departments often have value. Expansion is warranted. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
• Keep but expand The city of Gary/East Chicago is such a prominent one in regards to the high crime rate that this police department is one of the busiest in the nation. I'd say this article needs to be cleaned up and the focus taken off who commands which sector and put into more interesting encyclopedic information. Batman2005 06:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article is a stub at the moment. There is barely any discussion of the subject, the majority of the content being a list of senior officers. I would abstain from voting until the author or another editor has contributed some notable events in the history of the department.  (aeropagitica)  07:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and I agree with Aeropagitica in terms of needs more content to ensure notability is refined. VirtualSteve 07:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless I'm gonna be allowed to get away with seperate articles on every Police Station in Britain! Jcuk 10:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This does not appear to be about a police station but a city-wide department in a fairly large city. Important public service, at least as notable as any school. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean-up removing all the lists of current position holders. Capitalistroadster 17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned up. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 17:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Until recently, Gary had the highest crime rate of any city in the US. It probably still does, as regards some specific types of crime. (Look it up in your World Almanac; I can't find mine right now.) The police department there would thus seem notable. ergot 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jcuk. Stifle 00:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Byrne[edit]

does not contribute to wikipedia

• Delete as nn. Bobby1011 04:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, their band is also fails WP:MUSIC. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. Hbackman 04:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete band named "Instant Death," this article deserves "Instant Death" Batman2005 06:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive argumentation. Clearly a band from a subculture which enjoys different moral standards than yours must be deleted. squell 02:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With resepct squell but how do you have any idea what my moral standards are? Stop with the pretentious attitude. I voted delete cause this person is no more notable than you are. Batman2005 05:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, guys. Hbackman 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation says you voted delete because the band is called Instant death, i.e., because it's some obscure rock band you don't care about. I'm not sure if there's enough info for a seperate article, but this guy was definately more notable than I am. squell 16:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a play on words, let me know when you have a few minutes and i'll try to explain it to you. Batman2005 17:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete also seems to contain impossible to verify details. TheRingess 06:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[17]? Apparently they toured with Urchin (band) too. squell 02:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable drummer, WP:Music refers. WP is not a memorial to the dead.  (aeropagitica)  07:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Instant Death toured with Ween. If Ween are notable doesnt that mean Instant Death are by virtue of touring with them? And if Instant Death ARE notable, can we say individual members of the group are not? No vote, dont know enough about the subject. Jcuk 10:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enouggh notability rubbedoff from Dave Dreiwitz 13:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Srasku 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge with Instant Death. Wikipedia is not paper, and the general argument for deleting this seems to be "never heard of the guy", which is rather weak. squell 02:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per squell. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music Talk[edit]

Originally placed on Proposed Deletions but detagged by an anon, this article is about a non-notable podcast that has been going for less than 2 months and can only claim 500 subscribers--delete JeremyA 04:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn. Bobby1011 04:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• be kind, rewind and add the unsourced tag... in one week. Source it or kill it! --CyclePat 04:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per non. VirtualSteve 07:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --Notjarvis 13:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all podcasts. Stifle 00:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SEMISPEEDY DELETE - if the author is blanking it and this debate is going the way it is, we might as well call it a day. -Splash^talk 02:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Age Total War[edit]

Delete. The advertisement tag had been added to this article, and since then edits have done nothing to change that. On the contrary, the article now sounds more like a sales pitch. The page includes biographies of everyone who worked on the project as well as a giant FAQ section, and looks like a vanity article in general. Isopropyl 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advert. Bobby1011 04:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable mod and advertising. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Lockley 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. "And behold! ... it stank." - J.R.R. Tolkien. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me reiterate that: delete, really. Unreleased mods aren't notable enough for their own articles, by the way, unless they got really brutally cancelled or something. Took me a while to realize they hadn't really made a release, when the article managed to bury that in marketory talk and the links were malformatted too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam, and delete all the images. Notable, existing, commercially released games don't get this many images; compare GoldenEye 007. ergot 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The author (User:Fatsheep) blanked the article. Though he's not the sole author if we're nitpicky (User:88.153.105.61 also touched this article, mostly to remove stuff though). And I don't think it satisfies speedy G7 criteria because this article was certainly not created accidentally. (Oh, accidentally created the article, then edited it 27 times just adding more advertising stuff? =) Though I'm sure this action counts as a strong argument that the article should nevertheless be deleted ASAP! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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