< October 11 | October 13 > |
---|
The result was Keep AdamBiswanger1 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:BIO. The only references and claims of notability are on the subject's own website.--Konst.able 09:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. --Aaron 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:V - only sources are blogs, none of which are reliable sources. Article itself appears to be a thinly-veiled promotion, as the author included a link to his own blog (seoegghead.com) early on: [1], and . --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: somehow I missed the final reference to searchenginewatch.com, which may be a WP:RS. I'll leave this open though to see what others think though. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2: Color me embarassed: another source (Matt Cutts) is one of the big guys at Google. Looks like this article just needs a little cleanup. I withdraw my nom. for this article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus for now. Yes, I tend to agree the article is mainly a dictionary definition when you remove the wide generalizations. Then again, the article is better referenced than it was before this process. I guess my main problem with the article is that it is such a pedestrian topic that I would never touch it, or care whether or not it gets deleted (which is why I'm your guy to close this, I guess.)
As to the argument between Pan Dan and FrozenPurpleCube (the battle of the funky usernames) I generally think that a "pet peeve" is in the eye of the beholder. To me the term implies a very specific irritation that one person has, which is not likely to piss off many other people. I think Pan Dan thinks something similar, hence his disagreement with the sources' more general usages of the term. The subjective use of the term itself is probably the biggest problem with this article's continuing existence, but the references are the only thing we have to go off of as far as how the term is used. (Is the term used differently regionally? Put that in the article!) For the next debate, the subjective nature of the term itself should be considered more carefully. Grandmasterka 09:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion Delete as dictionary definition with original research ("road rage is caused by pet peeves" (WP:DICDEF, WP:OR). Transwiki if people feel like it. Bwithh 00:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever's looking for sources, please note that they must come from authoritative sources (none of the ones so far mentioned seem to have this quality. See WP:RS. ) and they must show encyclopedic substance beyond the dictionary definition (none of the sources so far do this either) Bwithh 01:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 04:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more than advertising for an (at least as of yet) unelected Ottawa city council candidate. Wolfchild 00:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 05:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, hasn't satisfied notability criteria, unless someone can come up with some accomplishments while he was the Republican party chair. Virogtheconq 01:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 10:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted per WP:PROD without any objections. Just two hours later, it was recreated by a new user, who did a bad copy&paste job of the article. Because the article is quite unreadable like this, and was, as I thought, recreation of deleted content, I put a speedy tag on it. This was removed tho, and I was told that speedy deletion isn't allowed on articles that were deleted through WP:PROD. According to the contesting after deletion section, I undeleted the article and list it here for everyone to decide what to do with it. --Conti|✉ 01:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 04:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First Deletion Reason: Non-notable neologism. Violates WP:NEO, WP:BALLS and WP:SNOWBALL. Wikipedia is not a place for things made up in school one day. Morton devonshire 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - If this article is to be deleted, I request that it be moved (along with edit history and talk page) into my user space. I think I can rewrite this article from a different approach for resubmittal. I just don't have the time right now to absorb all the sources, and find any potential new sources. - Crockspot 12:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - This article has undergone extremely significant changes (see diff [8]) - since discussion began. It might be best to close this AfD and start over. --Hyperbole 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a couple of more sources to the external links section, and removed the hoax tag. This is not a hoax article, and I hear this term in use alot, especially by Rush Limbaugh. I would request that all editors on this AFD posting before my timestamp reconsider and reaffirm their vote. - Crockspot 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to argue merits of the nom, I'd note that WP:BALLS and WP:SNOWBALL are not policies or guidelines, there's nothing to violate, hence irrelevant. While WP:NEO is relevant, nothing regarding it has changed since last AfD. *Sparkhead 03:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Move to Sabita Chowdhury. Per Antorjal it appears that the article confuses two people by the same name, one of whom is not notable and one of whom is and already has an article under her married name. It needs cleaning up to separate the two. Yomanganitalk 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed. No verificiation or evidence of notability. --Peta 01:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 04:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 10:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:BIO. Buried in the wall of text are a few cases of what seem to be assertions of notability, but they're mainly that he wrote drafts of unpublished books, that he was the CEO of a company that doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP, and that his friends really liked him. Crystallina 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by NCurse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): "The given reason is: it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". — TKD::Talk 06:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non notable student team Dodge 02:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, db-group / company, no assertion of notability. Deizio talk 09:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Online music magazine, arguably asserts notability by interviewing notable entertainers, but no other indication of notability. NawlinWiki 02:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 04:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN. Only real assertion of notability is from her book, which gets only 150 Ghits [14] [15], practically all of which are blogs. Aaron 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 04:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gaming website, no evidence that it meets WEB provided. --Peta 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Won one national award. I don't know if a high school teacher award is notable enough. Nishkid64 03:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Traxxas - Yomanganitalk 23:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was put up for speedy deletion, but it has Google results. I'll let the community decide. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 13:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Importance tagged for a really long time; this guy appears to be a pretty regular academic; delete unless notability can be established. --Peta 03:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep --Durin 19:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence whatsoever of meeting WP:MUSIC. No reliable sources. Not a speedy, because of the discography section. Contested prod. MER-C 03:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 04:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Veal non-notable person with almost no biographical information. This was a news item that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 03:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Glen 09:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pure fancruft. Doesn't belong here, maybe on a wrestling wiki, but not here. Just a one time thing. --James Duggan 03:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 04:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IRC client, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 03:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 04:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Short-lived fame, no evidence he otherwise meets bio, delete --Peta 03:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
changed link above to reflect that David E. Kendall is now the page on AfD after David Kendall was made into a dab page. Current link is confusing the AfD.--Isotope23 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence provided to show how this guy meets BIO, delete --Peta 03:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, A7, db-website with no assertion of notability. Deizio talk 09:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Website, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 03:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO, as the subject is not notable, even though the facts in the article may be verifiable. Even the references assert that this invidual was not well known, as one article states ("No one knew him," said Kate Marantz, 22). Delete. —Brim 03:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Luna Santin 07:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure this article meets it's burden re: WP:NOTABILITY. It's certainly not asserted well. It's also unencyclopaedic and I worry if this material was removed whether there would be much left of this bio. MidgleyDJ 11:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can rename a page using the move tab at the top of the page, see also Help:Moving a page. However I would probably suggest that this AfD process comes to a conclusion first as it might get a bit confusing otherwise? What do others think?
Papdt, please sign your comments, using ~~~~, see also "Sign your name:" below the editing box, thank you! Rich257 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Deizio talk 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is mostly results, making it fancruft. Anything notable should be in the Owen Hart article and/or the WWE RAW article. --James Duggan 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP-People in the future will want to find out about this, and i know this issuse is important to so many fans.
The result was DRP. - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pop metal was already deleted through an Afd and has been recreated and deleted many times since. The page has also been used as a redirect to glam metal and nu metal. However, the article was recently recreated as Pop Metal and the creator insists on having it as its own article, rather than redirecting to glam metal. Note that although there are three accounts and two IP's involved in editing the article / reverting, these share a very similar contribution history.
The article seems nothing but the creator's essay, original research and personal view on the term "pop metal", failing WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. It also heavily overlaps with the glam metal article. I don't think we need to consider every 80's term for glam metal/rock as a separate Wikipedia-notable genre, be it hair/pop/sleaze or whatever. Since there is quite a lot of text, some content, if verified, can maybe be merged to glam metal instead. Prolog 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Regarding the presence in other wikis, WP:INN is relevant, and counts double for articles in other Wikipedias. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how this musician is notable. Unlike every notable bassist I can think of, he doesn't have an allmusic.com entry, nor does he seem to have a presence on the web other than on venues for self promotion (personal websites, youtube, etc.) He appears to be a legitimate working musician, but I fail to see how he merits an encyclopedia article. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable club, possibly promotional Tom Harrison Talk 15:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IRC client, no evidence of notability. --Peta 04:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Moved to 2006-07 Australian bushfire season. Deizio talk 11:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A minor and typical event that occured in Australia this year, wikipedia is not wikinews. For people not familiar with the fire situation in Australia, today there are over 100 fires in Victoria, a couple in New South Wales and Tasmania, and 38 in South Australia. I have added details of the fire to the towns were houses were lost. Delete --Peta 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as A7/G11. Kusma (討論) 09:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. --Jayron32 04:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Any way you sort the arguments, there is no consensus to keep or delete here. --Coredesat 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was voted for deletion before, vanity page, is now back inexplicably 142.167.95.132 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These people are obviously fascistic nazis neo-pagan types, and society is falling enough down the drain due to right-wingers. I know wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place that advances a point of view, but for the sake of minorities, let's not let these people have a platform to stand on. Isn't that what democracy is about -- letting everybody have a say? These people wouldn't let minorities have a say. These people would censor wikipedia in the unmitigating pursuit to destroy freedom and coerce people into thinking their way. With that, my vote is a sound delete. --Iconoclast 04:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone here want to play Dungeons and Dragons: E-Bureaucrat adventure? 3.5 edition rules. --Iconoclast 04:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A legitament organization, trolls or not--ABigBlackMan 14:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It seems that the sickeningly egalitarian rules on this let's-pretend 'encyclopedia' deem it permissible to have articles like "List of props appearing in episode 432 of The Simpsons" but regard articles about subcultural phenomena, especially when the philosophies espoused by such subcultures go against the grain of placid Hindu-cattle conformity which this 'encyclopedia' promotes, to be a waste of precious server space. The irony of this is that the fool who nominated this article for deletion clearly doesn't even understand the first thing about what he read in the article. He claims that this is vanity. The thing is, Yomangani, vanity is a distinctly un-nihilistic trait. There is no reason for a nihilist to be vain, because it is placing value upon something that is transitory and fleeting. It seems to be thing at Wikipedia, though, that ignorance, political correctness, pseudoscientific twaffle and Judeo-Christian moral systems are regarded as sacrosanct, while logic, beauty and intellectualism are condemned as not being important enough for inclusion.
Iconoclast, so anything can be included in this pretty 'encyclopedia' except for 'fascistic neopagan ideology'? Let me tell you something, fool. Nihilism implies atheism, not neopaganism. Neopaganism is a pointless romantic revisionist historical creation which, while having aesthetic appeal to some, is far removed from any critically tenable conception of the world. You're ignorant, Iconoclast, but we agree on one thing. The world is indeed deteriorating. But the world is not deteriorating because of black metal. It is deteriorating because people are terrified of the truth, and would rather exist in a novocainesque facade of shopping malls, designer clothing, plastic music and trendy stupidity. The fact that there are some people who would rather have no part of that existence is mortally offensive to these herd-grazers, and that is why they want to delete this article. But this 'encyclopedia' is also helping the world to destroy itself. Knowledge is not for everyone. It is not democratic. Knowledge is an aristocracy. A fool cannot savour the existential fullness granted by reading the works of Nietzsche, or playing with the abstractions of higher mathematics. They content themselves here by editing articles on the local highway and their favourite television show. Pseudoscience is promoted here at the same level as real science. Religion is privileged above art.
That being said, there is no real reason why this article should be here. Its presence merely indicates perceived importance on the part of those who are not fit to judge. Nonetheless, it would illustrate just how fucking hypocritical the ostensive egalitarian nature of this 'encyclopedia' is, if the article were to be deleted. Any ideology has to censor that which poses a threat to itself. And while I do not delude myself into thinking that the ideology of black metal poses any real threat to the nauseating stupor of left-liberalism at the moment, its time will come. The reaction, though, of people to intellectualism and anti-egalitarianism is an inbuilt and natural extension of the left-liberal mindset, because ultimately this is what poses the biggest threat to the 'utopia' in which we live. So, if the people at Wikipedia are to truly practice the revolting morality which they preach, they will keep this article, not because they agree with it, or because it is in accord with whatever insane so-called 'rules' there are here. They will keep this article to avoid making bigger prats of themselves than they already are.
Now have fun, everybody, finding your 'consensus'. But know that consensus among fools will represent only foolishness. You make me laugh. --Diffeomorphism 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A.N.U.S is an absolutely superb resource for numerous musical genres and subcultures. It is particularly insightful and well written. Indeed as someone who specialised in music youth and subculture as part of thier political studies I can only but wonder why this sight has been deemed inapproprate for this site. I would go so far as to argue that its relevance is particulalry pertinent due to the sure number of related pages of this nature concerning music in the metal scene. Many of those above that have nominated this page for deletion furthermore seem totally unfamiliar with the topic at hand and its deeper meaning and consequence for those who live this style of life and make it thier approach and philosophy. I think it would be sad to delete this page and if this is then the case it is only further indication of the increasingly deteriating quality of wikipedia as a whole. Spectral Delight 19:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This site should not be deleted as it supports metal. It is a cool source of info on bands and stuff and has some interesting ideas on why bands play the way they do etc...
Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall, wimps and posers leave the hall. The Crying Orc 19:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles for similar organizations on Wikipedia, such as the Gay Nigger Association of America and the Cult of the Dead Cow. The former has withstood votes for deletion several times, and the latter does not appear to be controversial. Thus I think American Nihilist Underground Society is also a legitimate article for a notable organization. --Afed 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anus is definitely more notable than the GNAA or even the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, and both articles have survived deletion votes before. Anus has been around longer (since the BBS era), operates several websites (Anus.com, Corrupt.org, Sodomy.org and many more) and has been more active recently than GNAA, "trolling" both the cyberspace and meatspace (through flyering). Besides, Anus is much more than a simple trolling organisation, it advocates a philosophy and a lifestyle, and has articles that inform a certain subcuture (Death Metal / Nihilist culture) I can't see why it is less notable than Wipipedia which serves approximately the same purpose for the BDSM subculture. In fact, it can be said that the articles on Anus.com constitute social commentary that qualifies it on the same level of notability as Lew Rockwell.com and various other social commentary websites.
The result was delete right now. - brenneman {L} 07:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. Jayron32 04:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as spam. --Interiot 06:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. Jayron32 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as spam. --Interiot 06:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. Jayron32 04:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as spam. --Interiot 06:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. Jayron32 04:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Robdurbar 07:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam / Vanity Blaxthos 05:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Deizio talk 11:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OR/neologism and a minor topic that should be covered elsewhere, e.g. in Grammaticalization — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnPrep (talk • contribs) 2006-10-12 05:13:25
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really nessacary, and not notable to Kerry supporters outside of Massachusetts or who are Red Sox fans. Possibly could be merged with John Kerry's main article. Knowing Is Half The Battle 05:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Jayron32 05:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Deizio talk 11:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE. 421 GHits for "CorVision Cortex", many of them business directories. Duja 14:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: after discounting WP:SPAs and arguments which do not meet policy, there is still consensus to keep, with only one delete argument coming from someone who appears to have reviewed the improvements made (and that self-described as weak). --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Abstain. AfDing in place of ((db)) placed by someone else. There's contibutions by two existing users, and possible notability. Interiot 06:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, as it does not assert notability beyond simply being a publisher. It also looks like we've got a bad case of The Socks on our hands. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This puppety thing as i understand, are people called from a forum for instance to defend an article such as this. The only people who have commented so far are me, and the pair who wrote the article to begin with, and the wiki wise Sunkitten.
We are not one person with multiple accounts, and we only comment because we care. We are also totaly independent of Sweatdrop appart from Sunkitten.
Wikipedia contains a lot of information, most of it totaly usless depending on your point of view.
I say keep the article, maybe you could refine areas you don't totaly agree with. Totaly condemning the article is wrong, especialy considering it's contents are all true. Look at the website, read the forums. You'll see that everything is right.
Wikipedia should be based on the truth, not on notariety or fame.
Most sub-atomic particles are niether well known, or perticularly exciting but they do exist, and are listed on Wikipedia. Why not Sweatdrop?
There are articles about total losers, facists, dictators, food, small chunks of ice in space, things which are theorised about in the future which nobody really knows about, assumpions about the end of the universe, even articles about what the word dickhead means. So why not Sweatdrop?
I'm not saying that these things are unworthy of an article, i'm saying that nothing should be. If it exists, is proven to exist, and that information about it is true, then it should be included.
Note: The above is just my opinion. If you delete the article then thats life. Although deleting this article because a few people decide it's unimportant or has some ulterior motive is kind of laughing in the face of truth. Sweatdrop does exist, it publishes books, and stands out from the rest of the UK manga scene. It's a fact, and that makes it important to include it. The assumption of vanity and advertising is a complete falsehood, based on some cynical observations by a couple of people who would do well to enrich their knowlege of this small but very noteworthy publisher of manga in the UK.
Go on, google up Sweatdrop, they have many mentions on other websites as well.
Well; here are just a few links:
[43] Sweatdrop Website [44] Sweatdrop profiles [45] Mentions of Sweatdrop on animeuknews.net [46] Mentions of Sweatdrop on eurofusion.net [47] Mentions of Sweatdrop on noated.net [48] Mentions of Sweatdrop on answers.com [49] Mentions of Sweatdrop on the manganese forums [50] Sweatdrop merchandise on sale online [51] Mentions of Sweatdrop on quarto.com [52] Sweatdrop merchandise on sale online [53] Reviews of Sweatdrop comics [54] Article about Emma Vieceli
There are many more than this by the way if you look, this is just what i have scraped off the top.
It may also be worth pointing out that if many of the other british small press people are worthy of recognition then Sweatdrop certainly are.
UKMXL 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC) WRH
--User:UKMXL[reply]
keep i'd like to thank the member who offered their help with cleaning up the sweatdrop article earlier (crustacean man?) - i will be happy to update the article with some more information, but i am quite busy and find it difficult to get to grips with the format (altho obviously i'll try my best to make it decent).
i am not a sweatdrop member but have known of the group for just over a year and own several of their comics, books and the magazines they have been featured in. i also have a website with a couple of amateur reviews of their works (e.g. http://www.mangacite.com/Reviews/review_SD_stardust.htm )
the group is the major driving force in UK manga and therefore i would consider the entry on them worth keeping
To begin, it is stated in the attention box above.
‘Deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks)'
And so I put the fullness of my argument to you Consumed Crustacean. First, in relation to Neo magazine.
Neo magazine is the only UK based magazine dealing with manga and anime, and the only one to be found in non specialist shops there period. The only main competition it would have is in specialist comic stores from the American or Japanese version of NEWTYPE magazine. But, they have sole magazine coverage of the UK anime/manga scene. It’s a valid reference. But frankly, I don’t think it’s as famous as Sweatdrop is.
As a section of culture which only continues to expand in popularity, individuals who have no interest in that sub-culture may consider the likes of Neo and SD to be of no importance. However, that does not detract from the status of said groups. Those two groups along with the Tokyo pop Rising stars of manga competition constitute the core of the UK and Irish manga scene. Sweatdrop, through its tutorials and constant presence exceeds the other two in importance, is literally educating and supporting the next generation of UK and Irish manga artists, and frankly whether it is listed in wikipedia or not, will go down in history as the source of the organised manga creation scene in the UK. They simply can’t be robbed of that fact. Anyone with even remote familiarity with the manga subculture in the UK or Ireland has been exposed to sweatdrop. And the list of companies that they collaborate with includes industry leaders like letraset, Wacom etc.
Who are wacom??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacom they make the leading brand of graphics tablet used by artists the world over, but many people have no idea who they are, because of course they are only famous within the artistic community. My point is, just because a lot of people don’t know who wacom are, does not mean they aren’t of core importance to certain groups. Without them, the digital art community would probably crumble overnight.
And here, on wacoms site, wacom, who sell to the whole world of digital artists is Sonia Leong's work, SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS. http://www.wacom-europe.com/manga/manga.asp?lang=en&pdx=10 and on that page are also the words Sweatdrop studios.
Also, the references named above which 'are just talking about the artists as individuals' were to cite that Sweatdrop is mentioned before every tutorial said artists give in a leading concept art magazine which is read world wide a.k.a. the artists market themselves as Sweatdrop artists. When you consider the magazine in question has articles in it by the likes of ADI GRANOV and others who did concept art for everything from batman to star wars, names which might mean nothing to you, but once again, within the art community holds high esteem you have to realise Sweatdrop relative importance. It was made totally clear in the references that they accompanied tutorials by the artists in said magazines. It would be unfair to expect the magazine to allow a huge rant about Sweatdrop pre every tutorial by their members, and expecting such as proof of their position is unrealistic because that would never happen for any company.
For example. When you buy a pair of Nike shoes, you don’t get a 10 page rant about the company in the box. And the store selling the shoes isn’t handing out such rants either. Similarly, where Sweatdrop provides a service, there is no rant about them either. The very fact that they are providing the service, for magazines like neo, Imagine Fx, and companies like Wacom is the proof of their credibility.
In the October 2006 imagine fx magazine ISSN 9771 7489 3000 3 10> Sweatdrop is mentioned in the same breath as the biggest names in manga worldwide "other big publishers include Manga Entertainment, which is somewhat more focused on anime and DVD releases, Dark horse comics and Sweatdrop studios." -page 24 The fact that Sweatdrop in not an official company, but the blood sweat and tears of people with 9-5 jobs makes this ever more remarkable.
Imagine FX august 2006 page 27
Results of a competition run by Sweatdrop, and sponsored by IMAGINE FX, LETRASET, WACOM ,E FRONTIER AND TOKYOPOP are announced.
this proves a professional working relationship between SD and these very very respectable companies.
If you go to Tokyopop right now http://www.tokyopop.com, the leading manga publisher outside Japan, there is Sweatdrop artist Joanna Zhou featured, and advertised as 'of the Sweatdrop crew'.
Of note is that the article which was being judged here has changed to a degree that it is unrecognisable from the one set for deletion, for this alone, the article should be re-examined and re-voted upon after a short period to complete updating of the wiki.
Also, if you can find me another manga circle in the UK, or even outside Japan that can list credentials, and companies, and magazines like those Sweatdrop are associated with, ill be very very impressed. Credit where credit is due gentlemen. And in this case, that credit is your simple recognition of their right to be known. Various links have been provided, magazines cited in their defence, examples of their name associated with big companies within the trade.
I think you will agree, there is nothing unfair about that. At the very least deletion should be withheld for a month, to give time for the wiki, and a full list of magazine citations to be included. The problem is of course, any such citation can be negatively spun to being a form self praise, but, without it you doubt the importance or accomplishments of the group... How you resolve these two conflicting directives I do not know. Can you not accept all these references provided to you, and leave them out of the wiki, so it does not look like a list of ' look what I can do' references? It would seem that whichever direction they move in to appease you folks, they’re damned. Leave as in - not enough proof. Provide proof - tooting ones own horns.
Thus and for many similar reasons, the counter argument is flawed, and has failed to provide any proof to damage the validity of the citations provided.
Crustacean Man and the counter argument in general are being unreasonable in its view, as it was willing to be dismissive of the proof given. SD was asked for citations, and I provided numerous. Many of which were looked down for no solid reason. If Sweatdrop can be asked to provide proof , and provide it, then sir I say when you discredit that proof you must provide proof of your own, Questioning whether one magazine was valid as a source with the words 'I’m not sure' is unacceptable in such a situation, as you disregard the burden of proof you lay on others, and saying the other citations were just about the artists themselves when in fact it is stated plainly that they were bios quotes that accompany all of their tutorials in said magazine, and that I was quoting the bios to show hat the artists market themselves via the Sweatdrop name shows a clear willingness to pick and choose elements of the facts to reflect a distorted truth which favours your argument. This is unacceptable.
In addition to this, the links provided above, in respect to tokyopop and wacom, are proof undeniable for the case of keeping the SD wiki, where your current counter argument sir is based on mis representation of the facts I provided, which were cited in accordance with the submission rules of this institution. If you are unwilling to investigate my citations properly by buying said magazines , or contacting said companies to disprove said proof, then you have no basis to cast their validity into question, an by doing so you fundamentally weaken your argument to the point where it can no longer be upheld as rational. That is why I respectfully ask you to withdraw your argument at this point.
My argument is one filled with citation from site after site, magazine after magazine, company page after company page.
All the counter argument has done is attempt to tear down that proof with speculation. To any reasonable onlooker, the burden of proof overwhelms any current attempt to discredit it. Until the counter argument is willing to stand up, with proof to discredit these citations -you have no valid argument.
In closing I would say to the administration.
Sweatdrop has proved their existence, and that that existence is exceptional, through various citations from established sources. To include such citations in the wiki would be viewed by many as clear self indulgence and self promotion on their part, providing them with an angle to once again attack the SD wiki. Thus I ask that the issue of burden of proof of Sweatdrop’s importance to the UK manga scene and the validity of its connections to various leading creative companies be dropped as an issue, unless Wikipedia is willing to allow a list of shining citations which would only serve as self promotion, thus breaking the established rules against such behaviours. The burden of proof asked of sweatdrop by the counter argument was severe, and the proof provided was questioned in a very unreasonable fashion in that it was based on no valid source. A house of cards counterargument based on simple nay saying.
The only reasonabe decision, within a system which survives through the value of fact, of citation, is to disregard the validity of the counter argument due to a lack of anything but nebulous accusations and award the right to exist to the sweatdrop wiki which has clearly defended itself to a far more professional degree those who would act for its deletion.
James Gammell- October 15- 2006-17.08
The result was delete. Dakota 13:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely minor, unimportant character on the show. Character does not make significant impact, and only appears for a few seconds, maybe minutes, doing something unimportant. SuperDT 06:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed this article for deletion a couple days back, but that's been challenged. I'm to understand that the company/organization has no videos released. It was supposed to be some sort of reformation of a previous similar group named "Poly Bag Boy Productions", but I can't find heads or tails for this:
As a result, I believe there are numerous and currently insolvable problems with this article. It should be deleted. My regrets to the author; please read the above. --Kevin_b_er 07:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For a "widely popular" singer, I find very little information on the web (60 ghits, 25 unique, most of which appear to be from web forums). Simply put, there's no evidence that this singer has met any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a widely popular ethnic singer. I am gathering some articles from Zeba magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralWriter (talk • contribs)
I will reference the article. It will be listed under references as soon as I retrieve it...NeutralWriter
I put couple references that I was able to confirm. I will continue with other reference souces as they become available...NeutralWriter
The result was delete. Dakota 13:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep both. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical and notability concerns. The page also is basically a press release, misusing wikipedia for advertising. Em-El 09:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of autobiographical concerns:
Em-El 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Deizio talk 11:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom, former candidate for speedy deletion. Deletion reason was CSD G11, though it doesn't look spammy to me. Abstain. MER-C 10:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm pretty convinced the significance of the authors makes the book notable. The writer and illustrator are fairly well known. Englishrose 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was move to European Soil Database. Deizio talk 11:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of passing WP:WEB; Alexa rank of 69,000 for one of the URLs given, no rank for the other. Prod removed without comment. ~Matticus TC 10:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 13:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement/vanity page Cardigan3000 10:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, so kept. - Yomanganitalk 10:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
proposed deletion of small walled garden of this artist and his defunct indie/underground record label, whose best-known release was the subject's own Batstew (200 copies released). The artist has released the album commercially on CD in 1996 on destijl records, but there is no evidenc he passes WP:MUS (no sign of any awards, gold discs, tours, or reviews) Ohconfucius 05:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deizio talk 11:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irish guitarist; doesn't appear to me to meet WP:MUSIC, but moving here from speedy-delete page for consideration of arguments raised on article talk page. NawlinWiki 11:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I felt that adding such an Artist to Wikipedia added to the collective knowledge from both a technical and stylistic point of view."
The result was delete. Dakota 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advert for a software product. Written by David Cleary from the company that produced it. -- RHaworth 11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Coredesat 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Punkmorten 11:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and maybe more... OBM | blah blah blah 12:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deizio talk 11:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sounds fake. no source or anything, google doesnt find anything. Shawn88 12:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, as this is not a vote and no credible third-party sources have been presented to verify notability. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PROD for a website not giving any third-party evidence for notability. I just deleetd their competitor Avsim.com as an uncontested prod. Delete unless third party sources show WP:WEB or WP:CORP compliance. Kusma (討論) 12:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A software testing methodology. Original research written up in some horribly turgid prose. -- RHaworth 12:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article about a school football team. Sorry boys, we Croydonians must keep a proper sense of importance. -- RHaworth 12:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remote learning institution for our nation’s driving community (!!). So far it is an advert and probable copyvio. Is it notable? -- RHaworth 12:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 13:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Musician bio. Looks like autobio. Notability check please. -- RHaworth 12:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable (fails WP:Corp) company. No reliable sources (and none found with a brief search). Appears to be using Wikipedia as advertizing, Google search for gigmasters -wikipedia produces three results, two to the gigmasters.com website. Edits appear to be by User:Gigmasters and User:69.120.243.181. Both these accounts have been used almost exclusively to add links to Gigmasters article or web site. Article speedied once. Second speedy tag removed by 69.120.243.181 with comment "fixed article" (though only change was tag removal). Siobhan Hansa 12:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result was Redirect to Urine therapy. Sorry, didn't realize a prior article existed. NawlinWiki 13:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article accused of being pseudo science and not notable (few Google hits) Dweller 13:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deizio talk 11:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Musician- --Nehwyn 14:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be original research, cites only to article author's paper on iUniverse. Also including redirect page Necroeconomy. NawlinWiki 14:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete -socking is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May be noteable or not. I tend to think with only 55 google hits, he's non-noteable despite all the weaknesses of the Google test. However, I smell an attempt to bypass our WP:AUTO policy: on 12:20, October 12, 2006, User:Mkarpin created this article, and I promptly userfied it and informed the user 2 minutes later about WP:AUTO. Again three minutes later, new User:Mmgibson recreates the article, using exactly the same text. No thanks. Delete. Lupo 14:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, it is good--very good--to see an article on Alvirne High School. This notable high school had been previously neglected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmeevans (talk • contribs) [65]
By the way, doesn't Matthew Karpin fulfil this criteria in WP Bio: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"? And please note that the article has been considerably revised. ~~~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmeevans (talk • contribs)
'Maxjudge'— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxjudge (talk • contribs)
Don't delete. What's the problem guys? Even if Karpin himself did create the original article and then got a friend? to resubmit it under a different name it's obvious the article is valuable in Wikipedia. The revised article clearly establishes a case to retain the information. (I've checked the austlit database, I have access and there are five reviews of Karpin's work in the herald, the Australian, Courire Mail and Southerley and another one, which are all very creditable pubs in Oz. Fulfils the multiple review crietera) I also see that the same author (jamievans) who revised the article created an article on the famous Australian writer Delia Falconer who hadn't been included before. This is all important stuff. Surely a big gap in Wikipedia, including references to the important mag Hermes. Important stuff. You guys are just ridiculous --Pop (Popallen)
The result was Speedy Delete JIP should know better than this; when the author of an article nominates that article for deletion, it is a G7 speedy, even if he/she "abstains" in bold letters. I am persuaded that this result is "the right thing" (and not just a technicality) because the article has only the club's webpage as its source, thus failing WP:V because of a lack of WP:RS. Xoloz 14:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It must look weird that I'm nominating an article for deletion that I wrote myself, especially since I'm an admin. However, this is a response to the deletion of SMFR (which I since placed on WP:DRV). I feel that SMFR and Turun Baletti are of equal importance, and the articles should be treated in the same way. This nomination has therefore mainly been made to generate discussion. Abstain. JIP | Talk 14:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep because the nominator re-nominated this within 19 hours of the closure of the prior AFD discussion. Such instant renominations have never been acceptable at AFD, especially when, as here, the nomination makes no reference to our policies and guidelines, and just repeats the prior nomination with no evidence or explanation that the prior discussion has been taken into account. See WP:POINT, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If_you_disagree_with_the_consensus, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations_and_recurring_candidates. If there was a problem with the previous discussion, take it up with the closing administrator first. Uncle G 16:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gamer nonsense and basically an ad for the gamer group. Other gamer groups like this had their article deleted. It is basicaly worth a mention in the Flight simulator article, as it is. OBILI ® ± 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect. Punkmorten 06:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was prodded and expired the duration but seems good enough to deserve an AFD. Just listing here No Opinion from me. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deizio talk 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google shows 8 unique results for "Urban Artists Records", including the band's generic site, bandspace, wikipedia & mirror, myspace & a personal site. No reliable third-party sources found. TransUtopian 15:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 06:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically doesn't demonstrate notability. Movie in production. Basically crystal ball stuff. No IMDB link, can't find it from IMDB. IMDB page for Jonathan Cain doesn't mention it. No Google hits for "Jakina! Pictures" or "Jakina Pictures". Otherwise highly ungooglable title. Sources that explain why this in-production movie is remarkable would be terribly appreciated, otherwise, this isn't really going to fly. Prodded earlier as crystalbally, but removed for no apparent reason. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 13:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a pretty much unknown media artist. I'll let the community decide. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 15:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: with no challenge to Pavel's assertion of notability, keep. It is the responsibility of those arguing to delete to watch discussions for new evidence and either reply to it or change their !vote. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct model airplane company. Wikipedia is not a directory for hobby shop folks. DesertSky85451 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --Durin 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was speedy deleted by User:Danny despite a keep consensus in past AfDs. A DRV consensus overturned this deletion after receiving clarification from Jimbo and Danny that the deletion was not a WP:OFFICE or Foundation issue. Danny does make an argument for deletion in the DRV which many commenters might wish to consult. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, previous deletion debates are here:
The result was keep. Punkmorten 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
advert for NN-aviation retailer. Wikipedia is not a directory of corporations. DesertSky85451 15:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per A7. Nishkid64 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable high school band. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 15:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
This is a procedural nomination, that should not be counted as an opinion one way or the other. This article was deleted by Eagle 101 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 2006-10-04 for being "spam" after OBILI (talk · contribs) had tagged it with ((db-club)). The speedy deletion was contested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Virtual Air Traffic Flight Simulation Network. Given the contest, and the fact that the speedy deletion was only 2 days after the new speedy deletion criterion for blatant advertising (#G11) was first introduced, it seems prudent to send this through AFD. Uncle G 16:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first sight, this looks legitimate, if unheard of in English. The definition is remarkably vague, making it somewhat hard to figure out what, exactly, Piazza Telematica could be (a place? a service? a product? how does it differ from a hotspot?). The term is unheard of on English-language Internet (30 mostly bogus hits on Google), and there are only 6 mentions of it in 2006 on Italian Usenet.
But here's the interesting bit: what's odd is that this article started popping up in exactly the same format, neatly translated, on various Wikipedias in immediate succession. Compare nearly identical inital versions: pl.wiki, fr.wiki, en.wiki, it.wiki, es.wiki. Most of them are edited from the same or related IPs that have no other contributions.
I did some research and found out that the name is actually being used to identify a specific product by this organization. They apparently market it to cities and other communities, and fund it from EU structural funds. If yes, they would have a clear interest in promoting this term on random Wikipedias thae are used by citizens of the European Community. Moreover, on es.wiki and en.wiki, where named accounts were used, the name coincides with one of the founders of the organization.
Either way, the article is either a vague non-notable concept-gone-OR published on multiple Wikipedias by an anonymous altruistic polyglot; or more likely, a nicely orchestrated marketing attempt.
I submitted the article for deletion on plwiki, where I'm a regular contributor; I figured I'd make a guest appearance here to submit our findings for your consideration. lcamtuf 16:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: We also asked it.wikipedians for a second opinion - here is a link to up-to-date responses; they confirm that the phrase is used locally, but seem to suspect advertising. --lcamtuf 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod was removed by User:172.206.147.44 without comment. The subject of this article is a losing reality show contestant and a non-notable fashion model.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod was removed with the comment that "a subsequent career has been used as a defense against deletion". That may be true, but the career of this losing reality show contestant is not notable. Mikeblas 16:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this to be a non-notable proposal by a private group, based on this Google search. In fact, they might be using Wikipedia for promotion: "He said those who want more information can find details on the Helen Osborne Storrow Immersed Tube Tunnel at www. HOSITT.us or on Wikipedia." This edit makes that clear: "Sorry, this may not be the most apropriate spot. But we've got a close deadline"; "That puts urgency to make Hositt easily accessible (and WikiHositt understood, even if Wikihositt engineers need anonymity to work)." Their site doesn't even work! --NE2 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod was removed without comment by User:Bigkhrisdogg. Fails WP:PORN. Mikeblas 16:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability tag in place for 4 months and nobody's fixed it, so I'm sending it over here. RedRollerskate 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this doesn't qualify as listcruft/fancruft, I don't know what does. cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By it's very nature, this entire article consists of Original Research in violation of WP:OR. Also, WP:NOT a guide to this stuff, on Wikipedia. As potentially useful as it may, Wikipedia isn't the place for it; lots of free web hosts out there for this sort of thing. This AfD is also for Comparison of video services, for identical reasons and reasoning, and both share the AfD tag of the former. · XP · 16:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerned about notability of publication, and also because article's creator seems primarily interested in promoting magazine TJ0513 16:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the deletion request, since I don't think that anything in the article can be considered to be for promotion purposes. It merely informs what is the purpose of the publication and who owns it. The notability of the publication comes from the fact that it is the only publication for the city of Stamford and has the largest circulation among local magazines in southern Fairfield County at this time (this fact was not included in the article, since it could be understood as a promotional information). Thank you. (Stamfordct 05:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The result was no consensus, as both the interpretations of WP:BIO here are arguably valid, and neither has any overwhelming majority support. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO as baseball in the 1880s was not "fully professional", and this player in question only played one game, and nothing of note happened. A search for ("Charlie Ahearn" baseball 1880) gets less than 200 ghits [83]. Had a prod tag on it for several days, before removed by radical inclusionist editor. There is just no need for these "athletes" who played one game, when many who have had full careers don't even have articles. Tony fanta 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No news since April 2003. Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - there seems to have been enough time for the creator to come up with independent sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like nonnotable corporation to me, even with the one source given; moving here per argument against speedy deletion on article talk page. NawlinWiki 17:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please advise me before completely deleting the submission. Thank you Mferree --mferree 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. It seems that she's only published one book as part of a marketing spin-off of a popular TV series, and she's had only one broadcast media interview about the book, and she's done nothing else that's notable --Batamtig 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Yanksox 03:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be of doubtful notability in terms of WP:BAND, which it already fails for having no external sources. It looks as though they have only ever released one album. Contested PROD. Sandstein 17:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as a re-creation of the previously deleted Qual.
This article appears to me to be at best unverifiable original reseatch, and possibly a hoax. For example:
Contributed by User:Bytesizebrain, as their sole edit. Edited by User:WrAth2110, whose five edits so far include one edit to this, two to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qual, and one piece of vandalism to Fatah and its self-reversion. Ŧhis article is also the sole subject of attention of IP editor 71.201.92.252, which resolves to c-71-201-92-252.hsd1.il.comcast.net. -- Arthur Frayn 17:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a recreation under another name of the previously AfD' Qual article, previously created by User:WrAth2110 and User:Bytesizebrain. Speedy deleting. -- The Anome 17:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close. You want Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Please nominate this redirect there. Uncle G 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was originally redirected to point to 'Platonic dialogue,' because that is the correct term to refer to Plato's dialogues. The solution should be to delete it entirely, though. The term 'Platonic dialectic' is not one used by scholars. 'Platonic dialogue' is all that is needed. Danflagrat 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you have had a few famous "costumers" come to a barbershop, does NOT make your shop notable. Wildthing61476 17:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Written by self, against Autobiography TOS. Furthermore, not written in a neutral standpoint. Bradcis 18:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be a non-notable future computer game Hawaiian717 18:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
X_2> This game is already finished and has a pending sequel. I've cleaned up the article a bit to reflect this. It may be 'non-notable' in the US etc., but in some parts of eastern England (a.k.a where I am) it is real and is quite popular. I also believe that judging this article on its Google rank or results (whether Wikipedia policy or not) is an extremely poor way to check an articles accuracy. It is factual information and therefore encyclopaedia-worthy. If you erase this simply due to its 'unpopularity' it doesn't really reflect what an encyclopaedia actually is.
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
bio of non-notable college political representative. Fails WP:BIO. Speedy tag removed by author. Akradecki 18:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a1 (empty) and r1 (redirect to nonexistent/deleted article). NawlinWiki 18:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Misspelled variant of the article QuoteWerks that was already deleted multiple times. A ((prod)) was contested by user:71.41.127.202. S.K. 18:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smacks of spam, fails WP:CORP. Claim of "largest in world" is completely unsourced. Akradecki 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
===Robert S. Kwok===Successful attorney, but not any more notable than a lot of other successful attorneys. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 18:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Kwok is just an attorney, but plenty of other successful attorneys are important newsmakers and actors in their communities- and they are certainly on Wiki. Take John O'Quinn, Gloria Allred, Johnny Cochran, Ken Starr, Barry Scheck, Joe Jamail, and plenty of others. This article therefore does not deserve deletion. Deletion should be reserved for topics that are irreleant or are no longer changing. This bio on Kwok is neither of those— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.236.138 (talk • contribs)
I think the people who want to delete this page don't know a lot about litigators. OK, this guy isn't Cochran or Allred, but he's won some major cases and is one of the best-known litigators in Texas. It's easy for ivory tower types to criticize, but just because someone doesn't show up on their limited radar doesn't mean their not notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kas818 (talk • contribs) .
Whoa! Let's all just take a deep breath about this. It's good to have these debates. No, this guy is not Atticus Finch. But he may be important regionally or recently. That's part of what's cool about Wikipedia- that as much information as possible can be assembled and put into a larger picture. Having more information about something is always more valuable than denying yourself knowledge. So maybe let this guy be. The information may be useful to someone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 32Julie (talk • contribs) 13:04, October 16, 2006 (UTC)
The result was deleted by Uncle G as "attack article and general silly vandalism". Zetawoof(ζ) 23:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A joke. Not a bad joke, but a joke. DCGeist 18:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, but this could probably just be redirected to the list of episodes without controversy. Given this, I don't feel it's worth relisting this despite the lack of participation. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article's content is already mentioned in List of Mr. Meaty Episodes. Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 19:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was PROD'd then deprodded. Subject ran for state office on 2 occasions and held leadership positions in the Massachusetts Green Party, but none of this meets WP:BIO. I lean towards Delete.--Isotope23 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems pretty irrelevant. If it is a real, widely-used notation style, (which I doubt) that needs to be shown in the article. Even in that case, it should probably be a paragraph in a larger article like Musical notation. The name is nonsense. Mrees1997 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PROD'd and deprodded, the subject is the chairperson of a DNC Regional Caucus. I don't see any evidence the subject meets WP:BIO. Concern has been expressed that this is a WP:VAIN or WP:AUTO violation as well based on the creator's username, though it should be noted that is speculation at this point. Delete per subject not meeting WP:BIO though.--Isotope23 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
. He is verifiable and notable as such. He served in the New Hampshire General Court as a memeber of the House of Representatives for 18 years, and served in leadership roles in said body, including Party Whip. He passes notability tests with flying colors. Also, the fact that it is an Autobiographical article has NO bearing on the subjects notability. The subjects notability is verifiable by outside sources. The article needs a major rewrite to removed NPOV concerns, but it doesn't mean that WikiPedia does not need an article on this guy. Oh, and I shouldn't have to remind Calton to assume good faith and to play nice with others. --Jayron32 03:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]"Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (For candidates for office, see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections.) " (emphasis mine)
The result was Speedy close because no-one wants an administrator to hit the delete button, and merger can be discussed on the relevant talk pages. Uncle G 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super secret society that apparently contains one notable member - Drew Rosenhaus. I placed a merge tag on this article suggesting the content be merged with the Rosenhaus one (in fact it is already included there}. The creator of this article removed the merge tag after 6 days - see the talk page for more. From this article it impossible to tell who (apart from Rosenhaus) is in this secret society or what it is exactly that they do. Redirect to Drew Rosenhaus -- No Guru 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy: fictional disease from movie Zerophilia. `'mikka (t) 22:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an improbable sounding disease. An editor marked it for speedy claiming patent nonsense. Another one was going to mark it a hoax, but found google results and now isn't quite so sure. This AFD is to expose it to a broader audience who might be able to determine if it is a hoax or not. Plain Google results turned up 1,640,000 hits, most of which are for a movie featuring a disease by this name with this description. Some of them, however, are for the International Organization of Zerophiliacs. A narrower search [85], attempting to exclude the movie, and limited to English-language results turns up 522 hits, some of which are still about the movie, and most of which are dubious at best, but may be genuine (look at this one). A google news search turns up 6 hits, all for the movie [86]. A google scholar search for Zerophilia turns up nothing, but one for z chromosome turns up 624,000 hits [87]. So, is this a real disease? If so, where are the reliable sources? Co-nom by User:Twospoonfuls and ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into a single article, no need for AfD here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stub-length non-notable articles about songs from High School Musical Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 20:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete WP:CSD:A7 spam. Gwernol 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is just being used to promote a radio station and book, and the person in question is not of any significant importance. Lee Stanley 20:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 22:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without comment. Supposedly "a 15-year old R&B/Pop singer that is definitely on the rise". Only sources are sites where you can add yourself (myspace, indie911, ubl.com.) Google search gets 40 total hits, 18 unique. Looks like pretty clear failure of WP:MUSIC. -- Fan-1967 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. As it stands notability hasn't even been asserted, let alone verified by credible sources, so the fact that this discussion has received little participation apart from that of single purpose accounts (who can be discounted) is rendered irrelevant by the fact that policy is to delete such articles anyway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per the prod made 17/07/06; No claim of notability. Prod removed by Lor772 with the comment This is quite a notable game, existing alongside Achaea as its sole sister project for many years. However there is no claim of notability in the article (which almost resembles a game guide.) Marasmusine 21:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article gives no indication of satisfying, WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE Whispering(talk/c) 21:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established beyond a brief mention in a local Texas news article. Article is also poorly named and reads like a vanity piece.--Alan Au 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about a non-notable software publisher written by its subject. -Porlob 22:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (comment editted by Porlob 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The result was (not very) speedy delete. —Cryptic 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable article written by software's publisher. -Porlob 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (comment editted by Porlob 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The result was (not very) speedy delete. —Cryptic 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable article written by the software's publisher. -Porlob 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (comment editted by Porlob 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The result was (not very) speedy delete. —Cryptic 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable article on non-notabel software created by the software's publisher. DELETE. -Porlob 21:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (comment editted by Porlob 20:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The result was keep. Punkmorten 06:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, poorly written ophan article. Expansion would be fine, but as it stands, it should be deleted. -Porlob 21:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del nonnotable joke. Wikipedia not jokebook. `'mikka (t) 22:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is completely unsubstiantiated, and its sources are from message board rumors (in 2002) and a YouTube movie which is of a fan-made movie. Article creator removed prod. hateless 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And he was told by the people at the KH website? Please! And the guy admitted they were just rumours, too. Rumours shouldn't be on a factual site. 138.217.208.51 05:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By: Frill Bo
The result was delete. No evidence of notability has been presented - Alexa and Google data were dropped from WP:WEB long ago, for good reason. Credible third-party sources are required. And "smirking chimp" actually turns up an impressive 4 unique results anyway.[90] --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No context, just a very barren list of...African cities! I don't think we need this. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a reference for this article and a Google search brings up nothing. Not An IP 23:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: the case for keeping skirts dangerously close to relying on the inclusion of other articles, but when it comes to lists there are rarely overwhelming arguments or majorities either way, as here - so, no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is also not a usage guide. Just as Wikipedia is not apprpriate for articles that are solely dictionary definitions, it is not appropriate for articles that are solely lists of dictionary definitions. This is a appropriate for transwiki to Wiktionary, as an Appendix (and the fine work shouldn't be lost) but it should be deleted afterward. Dmcdevit·t 23:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, clearly no consensus to delete it. I would place a ((merge)) tag on it, but no target has been specified; enjoy the talk page. — CharlotteWebb 07:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of sea animals/creatures appear in the show, it certainly doesn't mean there should be an article pointing out each episode they appear in. Wikipedia isn't a fan guide, it's an enycyclopedia. RobJ1981 23:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Neologism without fixed meaning. it's continued recreation should be grounds for deleting and protecting, not recreating as a placeholder. Artw 23:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
---
Clarification:
It's the 2dn nomintaion for deletion for this specific version of the Web 3.0 entry.
There had been 9 previous instances of deletions and recreations for the Web 3.0 entry itself (not any specific version) over many months and by different people.
Per metavoid:
"The Web 3.0 entry has been created and deleted over 9 times already. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and again and expecting different results.
In other words, the article gets created then it gets deleted, in an infinite cycle.
There will never be a complete concensus on what Web 3.0 is just as there is no complete concensus on what Web 2.0 is.
One way to end this cycle of create-and-delete for this entry is to let the definition emerge spontaneously from contributions that can be validated against widely quoted references."
User Artw states "it's continued recreation should be grounds for deleting and protecting"
What does "deleting and protecting" mean? I can't help but notice that it does sound like censorship even if that is absolutely not the intent.
Given that the Web 3.0 entry (not the current version) was created and deleted 9 times already by different authors at different times, I conclude that it is a clear enough sign that there needs to be a Web 3.0 entry (or 'an entry about Web 3.0')
Marc fawzi 01:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
---
These votes are copied from the article's discussion page[97]:
- Keep: I think the content is now taking shape and it forms a useful placeholder for technologies that will reshape the internet. Peter Campbell 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- You're proposing to keep it for original research. Gazpacho 03:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, I am proposing that the article collect and reflect verifiable information on Web 3.0 that already exists, and as more is published. I am not proposing that the article include any original research. Peter Campbell 04:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Deleting is beyond the pale; it just needs to be shaped up to include more detail. JohnPritchard 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: At this point "web 3.0" is a neologism that is not in general use and does not have an accepted meaning. To assign the term to the semantic web, or the mobile web, or the pervasive computing web, or whatever, is to endorse a speculative future and give it a premature veneer of commercial credibility.
Delete - This just rehashes ,much of what is known already about Web 2.0. Not content-worthy enough. Sriram sh 10:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete on the basis that it is cited from a clearly unreliable source (a Bible article based on a website called "evil bible" - "This web site is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible."). Otherwise it is original research. These very strong points have not been addressed sufficiently by people proposing to keep this article. Though the topic probably does merit an article, it needs a complete re-write from reliable sources which do not have a blatant POV.--Konst.ableTalk 01:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No substantial information. Related articles like The Bible and homosexuality and Biblical references to incest are full of information and examples, but rape seems out of the Bible's context. Even in Sex in the Bible there is no mention of rape. --Gabi S. 23:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. ShadowyCabal, it is very easy: the 'Biblical' view is not the Jewish view. The Jewish view is based on the Talmud. The Christian view is purely based on the Bible. Thus, 'Bible view' automatically implies 'Christian view'. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No credible sources or other evidence have been presented that this can be anything other than neologism and original research (very obviously politically-motivated original research at that). --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or redirect to Racism. Neologism, see WP:NEO. Also this article's topic is covered quite well in Racism. Term does not seem to be in popular or even scholarly usage. As a neologism, it is primarily an article of origional research violating WP:NOR and thus is not verifiable or reliable, see WP:VERIFY. The term is hardly similar to "orientalism," it's closer to "anti-semitism" as it is used in this article. Note that the article claims that Darwin, Kant, and Hume were anti-African. These individuals did not concern their work with people of African descent and it's quite a stretch to imply otherwise. This article is not encyclopedic. This article is also confusing its own relationship between African and black. For instance, the article's image depicts the prejudice against black individuals, not prejudice against someone because they are of African origion. Discrimination against people of such descent is not always based on the fact that they are from Africa, so much as it is stereotyping the color of an indvidual's skin. Further, the article does not establish notability or importance and confuses anti-Africanism with racism against black people thus over-simplifying the view of African culture and ignoring the plight of blacks from areas such as Australia and the Carribean.Strothra 23:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see discussion section for more discussion[102]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 07:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This keeps poping up on my watchlist and I keep wondering what to do with it. It appears on the face of it to be a POV fork of hearing impairment. Although the logical place for it would be deaf rather than deafness, deaf is a dab between deafness (which is aliased and points to hearing impairment) and deaf culture, which is a long ramble about how only the totally deaf from birth are really properly Deaf (with a capital D). This article is a halfway house and is largely subjective. As a point iof principle the lead is completely wrong anyway, asserting a minor subculture meaning on a par with the accepted definition, and as the lead is a summary of the whole article (except in this case with even more weight given to the subculture) I think that's a fair indication that there is something fundamentally wrong. Guy 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article gives no indication of satisfying, WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE Whispering(talk/c) 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]