< October 19 October 21 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache















































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

The result was speedily deleted by Lucky 6.9. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Chunk[edit]

No references in article and a web search for him turned up no hits. Appears to be either non-notable or fake. Dugwiki 22:09, 20 October 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 was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Homeboy (soundtrack)[edit]

Homeboy (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why would you delete the track listing I put up? Any info is better than no info, there are plenty of pages all over Wikipedia that just have the track listing. I could do an album thing, but then I have to deal with the copyright mess if I try to put up the picture of the cover. Is having a cover enough to not delete it? I mean couldn't you just tag it as a stub? Why would you just delete it, Jimfbleak? Given I am new to Wikipedia, but I don't think it should be this hard for people to contribute to the site, I understand the wanting of Quality pages over Quantity, but this is all about information and even a little information is better than no information.

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


























































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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington Region Japanese Role-Play Contest (2005)[edit]

Non notable event. Lived in Wellington all my life, never heard of it. No references, no links from other articles. Very few relevant google hits, most of the top ones are wikipedia and its mirrors --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 23:02, 20 October 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 was no consensus between merge and deletion; those wishing to merge are free to pursue that in the usual way. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interracial Miscellaneous[edit]

A redundant list - see List of multiracial people - with style problems. Not much point in a redirect since I can't imagine anyone ever referring to this particular title, so I think it should be deleted. Crystallina 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This and sundry articles was created by User:Americanbeauty415 as a fork of List of Black/White people. My opinion is that they should be re-merged, since "Interracial" doesn't solely describe black/white couples, at least in modern usage. Also listing Interracial Actresses/Actors, Interracial Athletes, Interracial Historical Figures, Interracial Singers/Vocalist. The fork also destroyed all the old references (they don't show up in the new articles) but that's easily solved by readding the references section. ColourBurst 00:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do not merge into List of interracial people (which is a redirect to List of multiracial people), this is specifically forked from list of Black/White people (see my comment above), it uses the "old" definition of interracial (black/white couplings). ColourBurst 01:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't understand your comment. Is this meant to be a list of Black/White people? Then the article should be under a different name than 'Interracial Miscellaneous', and it should have an introduction about who should and shouldn't be included in the list. Chip Unicorn 01:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think I understand either. Surely all black/white people are interracial, and therefore it's fine to merge them into list of interracial people? Or am I misunderstanding? -Elmer Clark 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See my very first Merge comment. This is a fork from List of Black/White people, and thus is not a list of multiracial people. ColourBurst 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Addendum: a "fork" means somebody copied the content from the original article onto the new one, and (in this case) deleted the old content. Unfortunately there's very little context in the list itself. ColourBurst 02:01, 20 October 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 was delete. Anyone wanting this information included again should show a reliable source for it. Mangojuicetalk 17:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolohoveni[edit]

del. the article is 100% false. There is no such English word. There is even no such Old Slavic word, contrary to the article. This is a Romanian ignorant mutation (quite possibly, quite recent) of the Old Slavic word: "Vlach" in Old Slavonic is "Voloch". "Volochove" is plural from "voloch". "Volohoveni" is a brainless Romanian coinage similar to "Moldoveni" (Moldovans), seen only in Romanian websites. `'mikkanarxi 00:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It it is interesting to mention that a similar confusion happened with Ingrians, and quite very recently, too. There was land of Ingria. A person from Ingria was called by Teutons "Ingerman", and their land is "Ingermanland". The latter was borroved into Russian during the times of Russian Empire and Russified into "Ingermanlandia" And finally, some English-speaking smartass coined "Ingermanlandians" ! (thx G.d, no one wrote this article yet :-) If you don't beieve me, check google. `'mikkanarxi 00:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This can be handled without having a freestanding article for the subject. Mention the word in the Vlachs article, and you are done. In fact, that will be much more helpful to those who know little about the subject and search on the word. - Mauco 15:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: it is not an "obscure topic". It is internet-spreading ignorance. The term is an ignorant Romanian corruption of an old Slavic word. This is English-language encyclopedia, which is not supposed to describe ignorance of Romanians. The article text is false. Thre is no such word in old Slavic chronicles mentioned in the article. `'mikkanarxi 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is not internet spreading ignorance. In Romanian historiography this term is used. I was used before the aparition of internet.--MariusM 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying the article is an outright hoax/lie? Would you care to provide some evidence? It seems verifiable, albeit barely. -Elmer Clark 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I wrote in nomination? It is not hoax/lie. It is ignorance. The evidence is the mentioned Slavic chronicles available online in the internet. There is no such word in them. There is old Slavic plural word "volochove" (волохове) (findable even in google in slavic manuscripts), which means simply Vlachs (singular: волох, modern Russian plural: ru:волохи; and as I see even some Russian internet posts don't understand the word волохове, because it is an archaic form of plural noun).
And it is not verifiable via reputable sources (because it cannot). `'mikkanarxi 18:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...do you have any evidence of these claims? -Elmer Clark 21:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which claims? That the article is bullshit? Why do I have to have an evidence that it is bullshit? It is the job of bullshit perpetrators to prove that they are correct. If it was not your question, then please ask exactly what you want. `'mikkanarxi 21:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except Google seems to indicate that this term is in use. What I mean is you seem convinced that this is some kind of hoax, what is the reason for this belief? -Elmer Clark 22:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cna you read my lips: it is not hoax. It is confusion. Vlachs in various latin and greek and slavic manuscribts were named by many names. There was no internet in these times, you know. Everything was by the word of mouth mostly. I may list you "Vlachs (also called Vláhoi, Βλάχοι, Wallachians, Wlachs, Wallachs, Olahs or Ulahs" (fom wikipedia), also волохи/волохове/волоховцы/болохове/влахи/власи, moreover Blazi (Latin), Blokumenn/Blakumen/Blakumenn (norse),... you want more? I am sure Arabic authors had more names. In summary, again, "bolohoveni" is mutation in Romanian language of what was written in slavic chronicles: "volohove", i.e., Vlachs, and not some new mysterious ethnos at the roots of Romanians. Does someonne want to write the "blokumenn/Blakumen" articles as well? they collect quite a few google hits as well... I'd say even more than "bolohoveni" (if kill wikipedia mirrors) `'mikkanarxi 01:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if I'm understanding you right, wouldn't moving the page to a more accurate name be a better idea than deleting it? -Elmer Clark 01:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There already exists the page, Vlachs. And there is absolutely nothing to move there from the discussed article, because it is false: "bolohoveni" are not mentioned in old slavic chronicles. Moreover, it is highly disputable whether "volohove" (Volochs) were used specifically to refer to population of moldavian/transylvania/etc. lands and not simply vlachs from anywhere.
On the second thought, it occurs to me now now that it would make sense to turn this article into a redirect to the article I've just noticed, "History of the term Vlach", which may be expanded with what I wrote in this discussion. `'mikkanarxi 01:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still prefer if you could find some citation other than your own assurances confirming that this is in fact a simple mistranslation. -Elmer Clark 02:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not mistranslation either. Let me put it in a yet another way: is is a telephone game: (1) in slavic chronicles there were "volochove" mentioned. Romanian books qouting the chronicles "romanized the word into "bolohoveni", a valid Romanian word. (2)And now someone tries to enter into wikipedia an English word "bolohoveni" , which, (3) if translated directly from slavic chronicles according to English grammar, would be "volochs". How can I give you qoutations to prove that item (2) moronic? I can give you quotations for items (1) and (3), the rest is pure logic. `'mikkanarxi 04:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mikkanarxi is right. Illythr confirmed it in Talk:Transnistria. He checked the original chronicle which is available here here and it doesn't contain any "Болоховень"(or anything similar). There is a mention of "Волохове"(Volohove) in the list of "western peoples" there, which is what Mikkanarxi says, but no indication that "volohove" (Volochs) were used specifically to refer to population of moldavian/transylvania/etc. lands and not simply vlachs from anywhere which is what Mikkanarxi also says. So he is correct. This is why I support a delete with redirect. - Pernambuco 17:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the existance of these "Bolohoveni" in chronicles, they definetively appear. For example, I could give The Tale of Igor's Campaign where it says: "Thou didst shatter the Galicians on the Vistula, Yarosláv; thou sittest high on thy gold-forged throne, supporting the Hungarian mountains with thy iron-clad regiments, barring the road against the [Magyar] King, closing the gates of the Danube, hurling thongs amid the Vlakhs, judging and ordaining as far as the Danube!" [2]. This is just one of their mentionings. There are more, but most of them have yet to be translated into English or to be published on the internet. If this population didn`t exist, then how come there is even an article on the Eencyclopedia of Ukraine [3]??? What reasons would they have to make such an article, if the bolohoveni didn`t exist??? The article says that they were actually slavs, and took their name from the city of Bolekhiv. However, a polish document from Lvov from 1472, still adreses that city with the name of "villa valachorum dicta". At the same time, the geographic position of the area where they were mentioned, in the Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast, Chernivtsi Oblast, Vinnytsia Oblast and Khmelnytskyi Oblast, coincided more or less with Northern Bukovina and Herta region, to this day with significant vlach populations (see also Hutsuls). But what if they were afterall slavs: another reason to keep the article. It`s still a stub, and certainly need attention from an expert. But it would be a mistake to delete it, because the very existance of it, albeit a stub, can`t do absolutelly no damage, and more than that, it stimulates further research on this matter... Greier 10:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any mention of Bolohoveni in the quote from The Tale of Igor's Campaign; rather I see Vlachs mentioned. This supports the reasons why this article should be deleted. Also, the Encyclopedia of Ukraine gives Bolokhovians as entry, which is the current name. As such, the contents of the article Bolohoveni are very much in error, as they claim in the defining sentence that Bolohoveni ("Volohove") is the name used in the early Kievan chronicles, which definitely is not true, as you've proven yourself. And even if it were reason enough to keep the article, it should be moved to Bolokhovians. Errabee 11:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why rename it? Only to be re-renamed when another source calls them Bolochovians instead of Bolokhovians??? As for arguing the deletion of the article because the Bolohoveni are identical to Vlachs, then that is not what the point is about. The article already admits the the Bolohoveni are Vlachs: "Bolohoveni ("Volohove") is the name used ... to designate the Vlachs... ". The arguments in keeping this article are 1.the article is used as toC in that time period, situated in very different geographical positions. 2. The term "bolohoveni" is already present in Romanian historic works, separate from the term "vlach" (and as you can see, even in Ukrainian histography) 3. What if the Bolohoveni/Bolokhovians/Bolochovyans/Volohovinians/etc. are not Vlachs afterall, as the EncyclopediaofUkraine article claims? Like I already sayd, the article needs an expert... For point 1, I could also argue that sources give much more info, which distinguish this population (both from the rest of the Vlachs or the rest of the Slavs, depending on their origin). For example, the Ipatievskaia lietopis mentiones a couple of rulers of this populations (e.g. a certain Stefan), as well as their relation with the Mongols (they were subdued and forced by the Mongols to cultiuvate the land, as to assure provisions for the Mongol army). Now if we would to make an article about that ruler, and say that he was a "ruler of the Vlachs", then question arise: Of which vlachs? Had he powers over all of the vlachs? Why of vlachs and not of slavs (as the Enc.ofUkraine claims)? etc... Greier 12:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if these guys who vote Keep have even taken the time to READ what this page is about? It is a two-sentence article which shouldn't have been created in the first place. Where are the historical sources? They don't exist, because this "people" that they talk about never existed. This is really not something we can vote about. It is plain common sense, guys. Do we vote on whether 2+2 equals 4, or 5, or something else? - Mauco 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I see little reason to redirect from foreign language, unless one can provide, e.g., a 13th centrury chronicle with this spelling. Then it would make sense for researchers. We don't gave redirects to Germans from Nemci, Alemanes, Alemaes, Deutsche, Saksalaiset, Germani, Alman, Tyskar and 200+ more translations. Mukadderat 17:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you add a bunch of maintenance templates to this page? Did you mean to add them to the article itself? If so go ahead but I've removed them from here. -Elmer Clark 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, but you really ought to use the Sandbox for that kind of testing. -Elmer Clark 02:26, 25 October 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 was Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Worlds[edit]

This reeks of OR and lack of notability. I'm no Kabbala expert, but without sources… Avi 00:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hebrew Wikipedia, at he:שלמה (Solomon), where it claims (unsourced) that these worlds are mentioned in a book he wrote (The "Book of Worlds"), and
  • this Kabbalah Centre site (also Hebrew). The Kabbalah Centre site gives these sources:
  • ספר הזוהר, תיקוני הזוהר, כרך י"ז, עמוד צ"ו סעיף רט"ז
  • ספר הזוהר, כרך י"א פרשת ויקרא, סעיף קל"ז-קמ"א, קמ"ד
Also, there are some few details mentioned in English at the following sites:
Finally, the Kaballah Centre site makes it seem that these worlds are physical planets, which I assume is not the only interpretation.
So the question is: Is this a notable concept that deserves mention? I have found very little actual information aside from the Hebrew Kabbalah Centre site, which is very similar to the information in the article. The four sites above were not easy to find, either. --Eliyak T·C 19:23, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adamah[edit]

Other than the translation, everything else is unverified or original research Avi 00:20, 20 October 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 was DELETE. MCB 19:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of words meaning outsider, foreigner or "not one of us"[edit]

This is a list of related words, and, per common practice and WP:WINAD, it has been transwikied to wikt:Appendix:Words for outsiders. This list has no encyclopedic potential. It is therefore ready to be deleted. (For more information about this practice, please see the outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words, hich was that: "Article about "Words of <foo>" may be okay. "List of words of <foo>" to Wiktionary.") Dmcdevit·t 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote but a discussion. Of course you do not have to justify your opinions, but they will be given much more weight by the closing admin if you do. It's not a simple headcount. -Elmer Clark 03:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... one of those deals where "some" people "count" more than others... Actually, I'm kind of sorry I got involved... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A crude way to phrase it, but sure. "I like it" does not trump policy, which WP:WINAD is. At any rate, the article is not actually being deleted, simply removed from Wikipedia as it has already been moved to Wictionary. Resolute 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one counts more than others. In fact, no one counts at all. Only sound reasoning counts. This is why I asked for an argument. Dmcdevit·t 05:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, how about because only a tiny fraction of as many people are going to bother keeping up with it, or ever even see it, at its "new" location? This is the kind of policy that can be ramrodded by a small number of people with an agenda, that just sickens me about wikipedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closing admin: if the article be deleted (seems like) please make a good name for a category and place all list items into this category, because this classification is useful. Mukadderat 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment It is very insigtful to see that there is much more defenders of the List of sexual slurs. Tells something about the prevailing mindset of wikieditors... `'mikkanarxi 03:10, 24 October 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 was Delete --Tone 07:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of words to denote religious opponents[edit]

This is a list of related words, and, per common practice and WP:WINAD, it has been transwikied to wikt:Appendix:Words for religious opponents. This list has no encyclopedic potential. It is therefore ready to be deleted. (For more information about this practice, please see the outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words, which was that: "Article about "Words of <foo>" may be okay. "List of words of <foo>" to Wiktionary.") Dmcdevit·t 20:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is very strange for me to point people from chrictian culture (or even possibly christians) to sources that clearly see the encyclopedic nature of this terminology/glossary. For starters I suggest you to look into the"Disparity of Worship" article from Catholic Encyclopedia. I started this article execting it attracts some attention and be expanded. Therefor I myslef did not call it "list of..." But evidently in wikipedia the major interest is sexual slang and barioous bilateral political bickering.

For example, an average person does not really see much difference between terms "heretic/schismatic/infidel/apostate". This article could have been a comparison of attitudes.

It would also be interesting to read why some dictionaries put the words "sectarian" and "true believer" as synonyms. In summary, this nomination clearly shows misunderstanding and neglect of the topic, but I am unfortunately not an expert in theological linguistics, and I canot say more. If no one else steps in to defend the topic, I will not loose my sleep. Thank you for attention. Mukadderat 00:39, 21 October 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of surfing terms[edit]

Wikpedia is not a usage or slang guide. Lists of dictionary definitions are not appropriate for Wikipedia, but are appropriate for Wiktionary. Per common practice, this page is now transwikied to wikt:Transwiki:List of surfing terms and is ready to be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 23:51, 19 October 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 was back to userspace, as supported by the author and in keeping with a near-unanimous consensus that this doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. No need to drag this out any longer. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant (wikipedia article)[edit]

I agree with User:Piet Delport, who said:

--nkayesmith 00:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has now been put in BJAODN. There should be no reason to extend this vote any further. --Piet Delport 14:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I can't envision such a circumstance. This isn't the forum for such a discussion, but if you can enlighten me pls. post on my talk page. PKT 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps a page in the WP namespace would be appropriate? I agree that the material is important to Wikipedia users, which is what the Wikipedia namespace is for. --N Shar 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there is one already: Wikipedia:Wikiality and Other Tripling Elephants. --N Shar 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try Encyclopedia Dramatica Bwithh 03:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point. This article, though somewhat "meta", is at least about things that happened in the real world. It's also a gentle reminder that, not long ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elephant&oldid=248857 was about par for WP in the absence of vandalism and PoV pushers. When the fancruft, vanity pages, and spam are gone, then it will be worth retiring the elephant that we can talk about.
"All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" so yeah, they could pop it on another website. Craighennessey 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An admin invoking WP:POKEMON? Tsk tsk... -Elmer Clark 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right, that was pretty lazy on my part. john k 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever an admin closes it, I don't think there's a "set time." You might want to consider closing it yourself so that you can be sure it gets moved, or you could just copy it -- do you really care about preserving the history? I don't think it matters if it's to a user page...-Elmer Clark 02:04, 21 October 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Spiteri[edit]

Delete. There is nothing particularly notable about this person in terms of WP:BIO. [Check Google hits] Google gives 92 results (40 "unique"), not many of which refer to the Spiteri in question. Publications proffered are a journal article in press and a paper presented at the Canadian Psychological Association. Impressive by "regular people" standards, but not quite up to Wikipedia standards. Prod was removed by author. ... discospinster talk 00:35, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the better boxer?[edit]

Subject is a single episode of a minor comedy/reality show. Main article Kenny vs. Spenny provides adequate coverage for the series. PKT 01:00, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Lovers (Madonna song)[edit]

Yet another article for a Confessions on a Dance Floor album track from Madonna. There are no plans for this to be released as a single, or as an A-side remix, nor is there any music video. The song is not notable enough for its own article; it should at the very least be merged into the album's article. eo 01:57, 20 October 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Milano[edit]

No evidence that subject meets Porn actors notability guidelines. Prod tag was disputed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:28, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Council[edit]

The article is fan-created lore, that does not exist what so ever in the game world, and is presented as if it is in the game. The articles numerous grammar mistakes not withholding.

Originally mistakenly posted by 69.139.67.186 on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mystic Council on October 16th, so reposting it here for him. Derktar 02:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh and Delete per original research and uncyclopedic content per Talk:Mystic Council, Derktar 02:37, 20 October 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 was Speedy keep Nominator withdraws nomination given provided verification from Bartleby's. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zig (Judaism)[edit]

Unverifiable; relevant Google hits only lead back to Wikipedia. Either very obscure or made-up. For what it's worth, "Zig" is also the name of the spaceship in the the popular meme All your base are belong to us. Either this is an obscure Talmud legend or a hoax. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:35, 20 October 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 was Speedy delete, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 03:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonic Felon[edit]

Hoax and total gibberish. Prod added and removed by article's creator (!) after someone added more nonsense. Andrew Levine 02:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, forgot to log in! This is my comment. --N Shar 03:07, 20 October 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zegunder[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 03:11, 20 October 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 was keep. Mangojuicetalk 14:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stripey Zebras[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 03:18, 20 October 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 was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les Sectes[edit]

Non-Notable, book in French language. It does not even have an article in the French Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Smeelgova is the creator and primary contributor. Yomanganitalk 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
then perhaps Smeelgova will heed the message that the article needs verfiable references and will go get them for us. Can't we assume good faith? That's no reason to negate his or her participation in this discussion.OfficeGirl 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, but it really needs some work. There needs to be some information on how the book has been received by the public, by other experts in the field, other works that have used this book as a reference, etc. OfficeGirl 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: the above user is editing Wikipedia since Oct 17, 2006. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
counter-comment indeed but I see no evidence that it is a single purpose account. Pascal.Tesson 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
further counter-comment: the "above user" has spent considerable time reading and becoming familiar with Wikipedia before joining and contributing, is a published author and an attorney (and there will be no Wikipedia articles proposed with me as the subject). Being a new member is not criteria for excluding someone's participation or suggesting that the person's votes and comments should be disregarded.
As you may note from the history, the Kabbala article entitled "The Seven Worlds" was proposed for deletion in June, 2006 and it was kept for the very reasons that I have suggested here, though from aught that appears there was no hope at all for the article. I think there's good hope for the Les Sectes article. In years past I have worked on cases with a skilled exit counselor. In my exposure to the field I learned the marks of a reputable resource, and this one looks legit. There's a very good possibility that this book is indeed a leading resource in the field, depending on how it is actually being used.
And aside from the two articles "deprogramming" and "exit counseling" which are duplicative and desperately need to be merged, and the article entitled "cult" which is a cesspool of competing definitions and agendas, there isn't enough cogent information about this rich and active field available on Wikipedia. It's a topic which has affected our society and culture, what with the Jim Jones tragedy, Heaven's Gate, and the controversy that surrounds groups like the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology. It's good to have more information like this, and I think the article deserves a chance to be developed. We can always revisit the question of the article again if the requested documentation doesn't turn up soon.OfficeGirl 19:47, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Hotel Admiral[edit]

Notability not established on a "low level" hotel. Metros232 03:45, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hectic watermelon[edit]

I don't think this band has asserted notability. Previously speedied, author contested on talk page of article so I'm bringing it here to make sure. Great band name, though. NawlinWiki 03:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hectic Watermelon is a featured band & album on Abstract Logix (see http://www.abstractlogix.com/features_view.php?idno=92 )
Furthermore, the band has also worked with the prominent Jerry Goodman of The Mahavishnu Orchestra.
Before you delete, do some research on Abstract Logix & Jerry Goodman/Mahavishnu Orchesrta. --Pencilbox-production 03:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC states: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Wouldn't Jerry Goodman cover that area making them qualified for Wikipedia? --Pencilbox-production 04:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their debut album "The Great American Road Trip" was also mastered & engineered by John Cuniberti who works mainly on Joe Satriani albums.
--Pencilbox-production 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I withdraw my argument. By request of the band Hectic Watermelon, please remove the Hectic Watermelon page.
--Pencilbox-production 19:26, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Knights[edit]

Non-notable online browser game. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Less than 1000 Google hits, most of which are forums or unrelated. Delete as such. Wickethewok 04:06, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loick Pires[edit]

Non-notable biography; 6 Google hits Nehwyn 04:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I also add that this article seems the work of a new single-purpose account that contains the player's family name in the account name. --Nehwyn 18:06, 22 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon's Fury[edit]

Appears to be the subject of a vast astroturfing campaign. It was written in large part by the author, User:Jeff Head, and created by a user whose only contributions deal with it (User:Killa Dilla) -- just take a look at the history. It read like an advertisement before it was NPOV'd. I don't think it's notable enough to be here, though it's hard to tell because of all the self-promotion and astroturfing on Google. I don't know what the policy is when it comes to something so vigorously promoted by the author, but something tells me this is not notable, especially considering that neither the author nor his publisher have articles, nor do the so-called bestselling authors that wrote the foreword. If someone can prove that this is notable, fine, but it seems like marketing. Andre (talk) 04:27, 20 October 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 was merge. I did a sloppy job, just a redirect; the old text is in the edit history if someone wants to figure out a better way of merging.

Silas Sterne[edit]

Not notable. Guideline at WP:AFDP#Literature says "Characters from books should be compiled to lists per book, unless a large amount of information is written on a character." See also AfD for the underlying two books. Bejnar 05:37, 20 October 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 was keep. Daniel.Bryant 06:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Day My Bum Went Psycho[edit]

Not notable. Although this is a published book (2001), and appears to have a sequel, there is no evidence of notability. No prizes were won, no new literary schools were begun, etc. The guide at WP:AFDP#Literature indicates that "Books are notable if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not." I note that WorldCat shows that two libraries in the US possess this book, and eight in the UK. Bejnar 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The authors of these books is Andy Griffiths. His article is not long at all, and any comments about his literary style are appropriate there. Sales rank of 15,000 is very, very good for an Aussie children's book, but that does not convey notability. Compare a sales rank of 10,000 for The Random House Book of Poetry for Children which hasn't gained notability, it is not even mentioned in the article on Jack Prelutsky its editor. Bejnar 06:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your opinion of the author's literary style or ability is quite irrelevant. (Otherwise, surely we would delete Jacqueline Susann.) Significant sales are, in and of themselves, notable. Fan-1967 13:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not mention my opinion of his literary style. It is not the relevant consideration. The author's notability is not in question. Bejnar 20:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not suggesting getting rid of the Andy Griffiths article. I do agree that a best-selling children's author deserves a place in the Wikipedia. However, I don't think that every book he writes deserves its own article, or maybe even not any particular book. Read the literature criteria. Bejnar 06:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd have no real problem with making a single article for the series, but I do think that it's better form to have an article for the books seperate from the author, especially when they have more than one series. Call it a style preference, but it just looks better to me. FrozenPurpleCube 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be that the book is more notable than the writer in this case. It's one of those ubiquitous children's books - every niece and nephew has his or her own copy.

Capitalistroadster 00:15, 21 October 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 was keep. There is significant consensus for this when you count the keeps and merges together, but no clear idea of how exactly it should be merged. But that can be worked out by ordinary discussion, no need to come to a verdict now. Mangojuicetalk 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bumageddon: The Final Pongflict[edit]

This book is not notable. It won no prizes, it started no literary or cultural movement, and apparently even in Australia it is not well-known. Like its predesessor The Day My Bum Went Psycho it is nothing special. Wikipedia is not a fan-space for every book published. Bejnar 05:57, 20 October 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 was delete. If there is anything salvageable here, I couldn't pick it out. Of course a well-sourced criticism section could be added to Major League Baseball on FOX, provided those sources exclude blogs and forum postings... but merging from here is a terrible way to achieve that. Mangojuicetalk 14:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of MLB on FOX[edit]

This article is a complete mess of POV, OR, and unverifiable information. Nearly all of the "sources" and "references" are internet forums and blogs, such as the MLB.com forums and GameFAQs' Sports and Racing board. It's beyond help, and should be deleted. WarpstarRider 05:48, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Bragg[edit]

Non-notable actor, appears to have only three bit parts in movies. Previous version of article was redirect to The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement, expanded a little without actor information and speedy deleted (tagged by me), returned with more information, tagged for speedy and denied. Gogo Dodo 06:05, 20 October 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 was Speedy delete, this is stupid. (g1, a7) NawlinWiki 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Stupid! Pain, Lame and Crude[edit]

Total crystal balling, no net searches back up the existance of this film in production, and just to really annoy people the "Temporary site" becomes a pop-up magnet full of spam and porn sites. Ben W Bell talk 06:10, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oswaldo Castillo[edit]

Like the firs time: Non notable regular movie reviewer on a radio show, fails WP:BIO. Oswaldo Castillo + Carolla (of the radio show) gives 16 distinct Google hits... The movie is a new element, but it is only scheduled, and is not WP:V verifiable: [17] gives 5 hits; Wikipeda, IMDb, and homepages of the movie and Carolla. If and when the movie gets released, reviewed, ..., then this person may become notable: untill then, the same reasoning as the first AfD applies, and this should get deleted. Fram 06:58, 20 October 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 was October 26 2006...Live from the Wikipedia Headquarters, this is the AfD and delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Daily Show contributor appearances[edit]

Original research. Cruft on top of cruft. No sources. Fagstein 07:04, 20 October 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 was merge to Texas Tech Red Raiders, minus the lyrics. Mangojuicetalk 15:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Raiders, Fight[edit]

Test AfD to see if other school anthem articles should follow the same fate - Doesn't need its own article as per WP:SONG. –– Lid(Talk) 07:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. ColourBurst may be right and the lyrics aren't terribly encyclopedic anyway, but keeping the redirect makes sense. ENeville 01:49, 21 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playerworlds[edit]

Non-notable software; prod removed because "software was released in 2002 and is still being updated". Pak21 08:11, 20 October 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 was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PostalWatch Incorporated[edit]

Non-notable -- and probably defunct -- group. Media references dredged up are all trivial -- the group is NOT the subject -- and all but one from trade publications, to boot. Calton | Talk 08:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • it was taken seriously by the United States Postal Service and other advocacy groups, which is why a journalist researching a story on (say) letter carriers having to work into the evening would find it worthwhile to interview PostalWatch's Rick Merrill for the story.. Noo,that's not how journalism works -- one also has to wonder about the source of your glimpses into the mindset of journalists in general, but never mind -- being a quote mine for a few stories =/= important organization. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an ex-postal employee, I say no, not really of interest. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without even touching the question of whether trade publications are notable, "trivial" here is referring to the coverage. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to WP:CORP, "trival" coverage refers to the like of simply reprinting directory listings, "announcement of club meetings" or "store hours." The articles on this company are long and involved and credit a reporter... not just "store hours". And per WP:ORG, these are not "internal documents". --Marriedtofilm 14:58, 22 October 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 was delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transversal Corporation[edit]

non-notable corporation. Been around for < 10 years, few google hits, no claim to fame or anything that passes WP:CORP - tried WP:PROD on this one first. Peripitus (Talk) 08:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can't make two identical contributions to the debate. ... discospinster talk 12:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My fault - I moved the first comment from the article's talk page... the second keep is his bit - Peripitus (Talk) 10:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to make the article seem more like spam by adding 'transversal featured prominently in a Grauniad article about the Cambridge phenomenon', but for people who want this information, here are scans of the Grauniad magazine:

page2 page1 Grauniad Monday 29 November 1999.

Seriously, I think that it is worthwhile for some site on the internet to document what it is that makes for successful internet companies. In writing the article I was not trying to write spam. Rather, the point is: 'transversal are a success because they came up with an internet product whose value is similar in value to human staff, so companies are willing to pay for that product at a rate similar to human salaries'. If wikipedians genuinely don't want this sort of interesting information, where else should it go? Djcmackay 13:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC) D MacKay[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Companies listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange[edit]

Unmaintained list of redlinks and badlinks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-20 08:27Z

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS defaulting to keep. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ghost ramp[edit]

To the best of my knowledge, "ghost ramp" is a term only used by roadgeeks, so this violates avoid neologisms. It may also violate no original research; see Wikipedia talk:No original research#Ghost ramp. --NE2 08:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your google test is flawed. The words "ghost" "ramp" and "motorway" are all common, but don't necessarily refer to ghost ramps. a search for the specific phrase "ghost ramp" (with quotes) only turned up about 1200 hits, and with "-wikipedia" added (to remove mirrors), only left about 400[18]. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it still faces the OR issue, though, because the only source for a lot of these is a photograph of the ramp in question, which says nothing about whether it is actually abandoned or why it is in the current state. It's a shame, since it's an interesting article, but I don't see proper sources for almost any of it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main issue is more the lack of sourcing than the impossibility of sourcing, IMO. When I put in the effort to find sourcing for the Houston items, I had to drop one (out of five) because I wouldn't be able to produce a source. (One more was dropped because it has gone under active planning for completion.) --Mr Wednesday 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Count of references means nothing if none of them are reliable or support what the article is actually claiming. List of YTMND Fads had hundreds of linked YTMNDs but it was still original research to identify things as fads. Unless you have sources documenting that these ramps are in fact abandoned, it's original research to link and satellite photo and claim it as proof that the ramp is abandoned. As for the glossary, all it says is that "some definitions of commonly used words and phrases on AARoads," it doesn't say it's an accepted term beyond that website or with any particular history, or even that it's the best term. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (Before I even get to my reply, I should point out that its synonym "stub ramp" has been used/cited in legal opinions, including this one from Australia). Now, are you saying that photographs showing their existence are OR without the documentation of their history? If that is the case, all this article would need would be a more emphatic presentation of the references to their histories. This can be done without having to resort to an extreme measure of an AfD... as quite a few of them are already there, just not presented in a fashion that seems to be preferred by some editors.147.70.242.40 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If Stub ramp is the accepted legal term, I'd place the article under that title and have no problem with keeping it. It just needs a greater trimming to emphasize the identification in other sources of these ramps as abandoned. Most of them don't have that sourcing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that the article should be moved, but not deleted. The article needs to be pruned and renamed. There is some interesting stuff here, like the I-70/I-95 interchange that got cancelled and the ramps that were partially built. Much of this is not relevant. Now as for claiming there's a stub ramp, IMHO aerial photography to show out-of-use ramps and whatnot is fine, pictures are neat to, but to claim where a half-built ramp would go would need a source. For example "There are ghost ramps on I-65 in Huntsville for both north- and southbound" or something like that, Google map it. To continue "these ramps were to be I-365, but was cancelled" needs to be sourced. There are no ramps there, it's an example I made up. --MPD01605 (T / C) 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page was nominated IIRC for a renaming and it failed due to a lack of consensus and argument. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The photos are a pretty clear indication of ramps that lead to nowhere. There's obviously a reason that all of these ghost ramps exist and the fact that they do exist (with associated proof in the form of satellite pictures) is not debatable. For someone to say the ramp was built and the project was cancelled is not original research, though it may be unsourced. Unsourced statements are not necessarily original research. Just request sources (((fact))) on anything that you think is not properly sourced. Sparingly use the ((OR)) tag for speculation only. Ufwuct 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are not original research because an aerial image clearly indicates that the ramp is no longer used and is abandoned. It doesn't take a genius to see that if you see an abandoned ramp, or a graded path, that it was to be for a purpose. That itself is not original research.
Now if you go on and state, "This ramp was abandoned due to XXX factor and this XXX factor" with no sources, then that IS original research. Big difference. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A graded path could have been a railroad, or a power line access road, or an underground pipeline... --NE2 20:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. There is enough indicators for the most part that one can determine if it was to be part of a ramp. An inspection via a topographic map usually helps in this respect, as does careful analysis of the aerial image. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets into "careful analysis" you're doing research. We need reliable sources that come out and say it, not expert eyes looking at photographs. We're not here to reanalyze cold war spy photographs and write our own numbers for the size of the soviet arsenal. No one can verify the information without duplicating the expert abilities, and even then they could end up disagreeing, which comes down to a battle of credentials--exactly the sort of problem that we're trying to avoid by requiring WP:V and WP:NOR. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And we can't come up to what kind of "source" you would require. An aerial image is enough of a source for the vast majority. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An aerial image will not show whether there are current plans to build anything there. --NE2 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does it need to. A ghost ramp is a ramp that is abandoned, no longer used. Why would we need to list 'current plans' for each one when it is unknown for most? If there are plans, good, cite them and include it. If not, no worries. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that that is the definition of a ghost ramp? Do you have any reliable sources that define it? However, even accepting that definition, how does one know from aerials that the ramp is abandoned? --NE2 20:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no set defination outside of several articles that have stated "ramps to nowhere" or "stubs" or "ghost ramps." But I suppose it is a descriptive title that is far easier to manage and state than "Highway reminants that are no longer in operation". One can tell from aerials when a ramp is abandoned, it doesn't take a genius to see that [19] contains a ghost ramp. Or that [20] was originally a terminus just by judging from a topographic map (the article contains a factual source as well). If you can't tell what's abandoned/disused and active from an aerial image, perhaps that indicates you are just pulling for air here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read avoid neologisms. --NE2 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities... and if the term has been in use for over four decades, it might not have "recently been coined," unless we wish to argue and nitpick on the definition of "recently" (while we're at it, shall we also debate of legitimacy of the Wikipedia definitions of "obscenity" and "smut"?). The terms "ghost ramp" and "stub ramp" predate the Internet by decades - and, unless there has been a change of definition in the last few years, neither involved the abandonment issue. AARoads.com summarized it best: they are roads (and ramps) to nowhere.147.70.242.40 22:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you would list any "ghost ramp" that exists or that used to exist? --NE2 21:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, this article will be a very large list, listing every single place that a road once ended temporarily, and every place a small piece of pavement exists or existed from a former alignment. I don't see that being a good article, not that the current article seems good to me. --NE2 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing is he says that citing the year and the reason it was abandoned (presumably from a newspaper report), then THAT would be original research?
Who said that? Ufwuct 14:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously, this term seems to be not used outside of roadgeek forums and Wikipedia mirrors [21]. Nothing is turned up in a news search nor in an academic journal search. Serious WP:V problems, closer needs to take this into account. --W.marsh 22:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure sources exist for many of these ramps. State DOT offices would have information on proposed freeways and local newspaper articles would, in many cases, explain why the project was cancelled. Let's work on sourcing some of the major ones, possibly keeping the unsourced ones on the talk page until sources can be found. Ufwuct 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the sources earlier for the Houston area ramps and also a few non-satellite sources for the Saint Louis area ramps. I would think the Embarcadero, Mt. Hood Freeway, and I-70 extension into Baltimore would have reliable sources explaining the reason for the cancellations as these were contentious routes. Ufwuct 22:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier I stated that the article should be kept, and I still feel that way, but that does not mean that I think the article is fine the way it is now. The article states that a ghost ramp "is an incomplete onramp or offramp which does not connect a freeway or expressway with another road" and on a cursory look it appears there are numerous entries do not meet the definition. Some examples from the region I live in are the 2 entries for Louisville. The first entry is a highway section that is partially complete in anticipation of being completed, has no ramps that do not connect to another road, and has no 'ghost ramps'. The second Louisville entry is on a completed intersection, so it should not included either. A Cincinnati entry has its reference as a page on 'Never-Built Cincinnati Expressways'... if it was never built, there is no 'ghost ramp' there either. In contrast, I've driven through Memphis several times and have seen these ramps to nowhere and, being the curious person that I am, looked it up online and found that the partially constructed highway was stopped mid-construction due to a lawsuit that was won by neighborhood groups. I would be the first to say that the article does have inaccuracies and is in need of cleanup, but that does not mean it needs to be deleted altogether. Ghost ramp is a valid term and this could be a good article if it only included true ghost ramps (which I would guess would be about ⅓ of what is actually listed) and had more references than just links to aerial photographs, but instead of throwing the good out with the bad I find it preferable to make the mediocre better. --Chris24 01:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's mediocre - I think it's totally unacceptable as it stands. I think it has to be deleted and if it ever comes back, it has to be strictly based on verifiable data. The Google aerial photos can be used as additional support - they should never serve as sources. The notability of the actual title and concept also has to be established - we don't accept neologisms. Crum375 02:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If your reasoning is convincing, & the closing Admin decides that this article should be deleted, we should then turn our attention to deleting roadgeek. That term is obviously a neologism, & that article also lacks the sources you are demanding. -- llywrch 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Working on the article...Exactly. Thank you for voicing what I could not. This article is not a completed work but a work in progress. Ufwuct 14:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, but there's the rub. Most of these are merely supported by a WP enthusiast's GoogleMap aerial photo of what seems to fit the criterion (with possible added comment "trust me, over here everyone knows it's abandoned"). A little short on reliable sourcing, to the say the least, and a little long on original research. To meet the criterion you suggest, we would need definitive information showing the stub in question is truly abandoned, not just a work-in-progress with some possible delay. And I have yet to see a single such reference that clearly shows abandonment for any of the items in the article. And even if there are a couple that I missed, the vast majority are pure WP:OR and speculation at this time. Crum375 15:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't tell that from this image, you cannot see the stubs? Perhaps we should all don on reading glasses here, because it seems as if the majority of the nay-sayers are doubting these are really abandoned and are doubting the credibility of said publishers who worked on this article! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the future, not the present. The picture only shows us the present - not the future. If there are plans afoot to continue construction next year, it would mean the project is not abandoned, yet the aerial photo won't tell you that. If you have glasses that can see the future, I'll buy a couple of pairs from you. Crum375 16:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have not decided on the scope, so it is the present phenomenon that we (many editors) are trying to describe (with, in some cases, information about past construction plans). I brought this up before, asking what the scope should be. Some editors have suggested that it only be about ramps that were built with the intention of connecting to another freeway which were later cancelled. However, there was no consensus. The scope of the article could be to-be-constructed freeways or "abandoned" ramps. Many of the naysayers seem to be using this one case (that the article should only include "abandoned" ramps) so that they can make a half-credible argument of original research. All of the satellite photos show non-completed ramps and that is not debatable. If we eventually decide to limit the scope to only abandoned ramps, and editors add unsourced information claiming that a ramp is abandoned based only on a satellite photo, then you can make the claim of original research. Ufwuct 17:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to invoke the spirit, thogh not the literal reading, of WP:AAGF. No one is calling anybody uncredible. (Incredible?) --Masamage 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True - my own remark about "trust me, everyone here knows it's abandoned" is only to highlight the fact that WP does not recognize an editor's "say so" as acceptable source. Crum375 16:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then an amendment can be added when it is (if) constructed. Wikipedia is a work in progress, nothing is finalised. Contributors come and go, and so will entries for this article. Therefore, if you have any evidence to prove that it is being extended or whatever, you should add it rather than try and blast down the entire page based on the pretense that "something could happen." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Abandoned', as in a public project, has a negative connotation, that reflects poorly on the community and/or its local government. At WP we only make a negative comment about a community or a government if it's well supported. In this case, if you see an incomplete project, you cannot call it 'abandoned' until you have reliable proof that it had been given up on. We assume innocent till proven guilty, not the other way around. Crum375 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're stretching here. "Abandoned" is not necessarily perjorative: in the case of the ghost ramps (or whatever you want to call these things) along I-5 in Portland, they were built for projected highways that not only were never built, it took local grassroots mobilization to stop them. Making government officials listen to the people is sometimes a good thing. And saying that these projects could be restarted any time is much like saying that the USA is not definitively independent of the UK: after all, the UK could always raise & send an army to end their "rebellion". -- llywrch 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a project, that has a visually unsightly ramp leading to nowhere, 'abandoned' is making a judgment, not just a visual observation. That judgment requires proof, per WP:V and WP:NOR. Crum375 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to use the black-and-white term "abandoned" in every paragraph if the article is kept. There are many options:
  • Where proof and reliable sources exist, use "abandoned".
  • Where the status of the ramp is unknown, but proof exists that it has never been used, we could say "unused"
  • Or "unused for X years".
  • Where the satellite picture shows an obvious ramp that is unusable (e.g. because it dead-ends in mid-air) leading to nothing, we could say "currently unused stub ramp". (Again, this depends on the scope of the article that we decide on).
  • etc., etc.
However, if the article is deleted, there will be no chance to convey these differences or subtleties. Let's have a little faith in future editors that they will be able to word the text properly (and of course, provide reliable sources as well). Ufwuct 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. So let's just remake this article into one that is just all rosy and cheerful by calling them "unused highway ramps" is okay, but your whole argument about "WP makes negative comments if its well supported" is quite laughable. Labeling a ramp "abandoned" is not "negative" but clearly states that the ramp is abandoned, no longer used. Now tell me how that is "negative" against the "government"? A rerouting could have occured, or the ramp may have been realigned, or there was community opposition. You have no idea, so don't go out and label all "abandoned ramps" as negativity towards this "government." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that is ugly looking and seems like a waste of taxpayer's money (if truly abandoned) is negative. To say that it is for sure abandoned, hence negative reflection on the community/government, would require proper proof. An aerial photo doesn't prove abandonment, only lack of completion at a given point in time. Crum375 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who said ugly? Not me. Where in the article (except for the one road in Quebec talking about striping) does it say ugly? Or unsightly? Who said "waste of taxpayer's (sic) money"? Where in the article does it say this? Nowhere that I can see. For someone to make the leap to say it's "ugly" or a "waste of taxpayers' money" takes, well, ... a leap. If you have a problem with the wording, change that. But let's not scrap the article. Ufwuct 18:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in some cases, building the intial ramps is probably cheaper if there is a high probability that the connecting road will be built. If you're doing a construction project on one freeway, it's likely a lot less expensive to built the connections (the ramps) from road #1 to road #2 while doing construction work on road #1 so that road #1 doesn't have to be partially shut down again when road #2 is eventually built. If the DOT of that state and leaders were under the impression that building road #2 was a virtual certainty, then building the ramps first makes more economic sense. Ufwuct 18:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought this was one of those things that are obvious, at least to me it was. Are you saying that to you the abandoned stubs are not ugly, nor a waste of money? Crum375 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it's obvious, but POV? Maybe your POV? Has anyone else used the words ugly or waste of money other than you? I'm suggesting that we describe a ramp as ... (see my bulleted list above)... as it is. If you make the leap that it's ugly and a waste of money, that's your prerogative, but not the result of wording in the article, nor any editor's words on this talk page. Ufwuct 18:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that to you the clearly abandoned ones are not ugly nor a waste of money? Crum375 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, no I'm not saying that and did not say that.
  • Second, regarding ugliness: who cares if I think it's ugly?!? If a reliable source shows significant community opinion that it is ugly, then we can mention it. Otherwise, it's totally irrelevant and should be worded in a way that prevents making a judgment regarding the aesthetic qualities of these structures in a general or on a case-by-case basis.
  • Third, regarding "waste of money": It depends on the case. Construction projects in general have contingency plans based on the difficulty of construction or significance of (environmental, social, economic, etc.) impacts based on different alternatives and also on the future political atmosphere (e.g. Who will be in office X years from now when the project will require important permits? Are there any politically powerful people (or "squeaky wheels") in the path of the proposed project, regardless of the significance of impacts to those people)? They make the best decisions possible based on the information they have at they time regarding whether or not a project will proceed (in this case, road #2 (see above)). If there's an 80% chance that road #2 will be built and the costs of building the ramps (from road #1 to road #2) now are less than the costs of building the ramps later once the area has grown in population and traffic (keep in mind that you have to shut down road #1 once again), then I would say it probably makes sense to take the gamble and build the ramps now. Nowadays, schedule analysis in construction projects is much more sophisticated than it was 40 years ago, so there's not as much "gambling" inherent in this scenario. So, to sum up, it depends on each circumstance. If we have reliable sources that analyze the costs in depth or that show that significant community opinion (in the area of the ramps) believes the ramps were a waste of money, let's add it. Otherwise, my opinion and your opinion are irrelevant, as this is an encyclopedia and not a blog. Ufwuct 19:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)My point is not that we need to say in the article that "ghost ramps are ugly" or waste of money, although I am sure we could get a reputable source to say that if we wanted to. My point is simply that calling a structure or a construction project 'abandoned' is negative, at least to most people, and hence can only be done on WP article space if there is proper sourcing for saying so. Crum375 19:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't say things without proper sourcing regardless of whether they are negative. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said thirteen edits ago, the wording depends on the circumstances. These statements don't need sources because some people might think they are negative. These statements need sources for the simple fact that they are statements in an encyclopedia. Wouldn't you agree? Ufwuct 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Night Gyr, it appears we are saying the exact same thing, but I didn't see your comment first because of an edit conflict. Ufwuct 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The negative aspect of the statements does have some implications in WP. Yes, everything needs good sources, but we tend to be more strict and require better sources when a negative statement, that can be perceived as offensive to someone or some group is made. Also, in the case of non-negative statements some have made the argument of "let's leave the statement in the article, and hope that some future editor will add a source". I personally don't buy that, but in the case of a negative statement it's even more unacceptable. So yes, they all require sources, but negatives require better sources, and they stay out unless well sourced. Crum375 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a Biography of a living person. The ramp will not get offended and it is extremely unlikely that the builder or designer of these ramps or highway projects will get offended either. It's just an abandoned ramp, not an abandoned area, or an abandoned person or group of people, or an abandoned city. So I would be surprised if residents of the areas in question get offended either. In some cases (e.g. Portland or San Francisco), people see these "abandoned ramps" as a source of pride...a neighborhood "saved", sticking it to the man, etc., etc. "Abandoned" ≠ a negative statement. So far, you are the only one making this argument. I have already proposed removing some of the unsourced and least credible statments and putting unsourced statments on Talk:Ghost ramp. Those statements can remain there and gradually be readded as we get sources. I would hope that this should satisfy your desires to get "negative" statements out of the article space, not that I think such a thing is necessary because the statement are "negative". Rather, they should be stored on the talk page because they are simply unsourced. Ufwuct 20:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree the offensiveness and liability to WP are not BLP-like and fairly minor, so I agree that temporary storage of unsourced items in Talk space is fine. Crum375 20:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. We may have to put 90% of the items on the talk page (or perhaps a sub-talk page) to start out, but if that is necessary to save the article, I wouldn't have any major objections. There are a few sources as refs, a few other non-satellite embedded references, and a few articles that have wikilinks to other sourced articles, so the entire article would not likely disappear. Perhaps I will propose this as an alternative to deletion. Ufwuct 20:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I do a groups search on the phrase "ghost ramp" (rather than the individual words), I get 127 hits (with another 421 for "ghost ramps"), which are almost entirely from misc.transport.road or rec.sport.pinball (different topic), 7 for "stub ramp", and nothing on-topic for "dead ramp". I guess that shows that the m.t.r folks preferentially use "ghost ramp", but I'm not sure that's a persuasive argument as to the name of the article here. --Mr Wednesday 06:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other uses of ghost ramps outside of the groups on numerous web-sites should indicate that it is commonly used. Not to the greatest extent, but it is referenced on numerous web-sites that deal with transportation, highways in specific, where anyone who is reading the body of the text can find contextual clues as to what "ghost ramp" indicates. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 24 October 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 was delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VbGORE[edit]

Non-notable online game engine, fails to meet both WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE Percy Snoodle 08:48, 20 October 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 wasshowball delete hoax. `'mikkanarxi 17:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ó Ceasaigh[edit]

Also included in this nomination:

Kányé Of The West[edit]
Celtic Legacy Records[edit]
Through the Gap of Dunloe[edit]

I'm 100% convinced these articles are hoaxes. I came across the top article yesterday whilst RC patrolling after an IP blanked it. I immediately saw it needed work and proceeded to remove POV, format it correctly, correct red links, stub, categorize and general fix ups. Ten minutes later when done it occured to me that there were no sources, or external links at all so I started searching, and searching, and searching. In short here's what I found (or didnt)

  1. A google search for "Sean Ó Ceasaigh" produces zero results
  2. As does "Sean O Ceasaigh", or even just (no quotes) Sean Ceasaigh. Even Ceasaigh produces less than ten!
  3. Through the Gap of Dunloe is an irish expression it seems for travelling through a certain provence, however a search for the, ahem; "song [and album of the same name] made famous by Irish musician Sean Ó Ceasaigh" produces less than ten results - none of them an actual album or song (I searched both)
  4. Zero relevant results when searching for "Kányé Of The West" - the Irish musician, and a search for his hit song ""Bean as Dearg" produces one result, Wikipedia.
  5. Oh, a search for Sean's and Kayne's joint hit song "Ba Mhaith Liom Bris Amach" produces one result, Wikipedia.
  6. Finally, as one would expect, I could not find a single trace of their record label Celtic Legacy Records either.

In short, Delete Glen 09:37, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featuring Percy[edit]

A fake article about a fake thomas the tank engine episode on youtube- Delete-- Storm05 16:43, 18 October 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 was slight merge the Jonny Greenwood, redirect the Kurt Cobain: that way, anyone wanting to merge information back can do so. Mangojuicetalk 15:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of musical equipment used by Jonny Greenwood[edit]

Also nominating:

I can't see how this is possibly of encyclopedic value. If there is a particular instrument he used which was of note, that should be mentioned in his article. But this? What's next? List of pens used by Isaac Asimov? Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. - Che Nuevara 00:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't List of musical equipment used by Kurt Cobain be up for deletion as well then? -Daisy-berkowitz 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that there are a lot of these? I really hope not. I'll multi-nom the Cobain one too, but if there are a bunch of these then I'm afraid this'll turn into a mess. - Che Nuevara 01:03, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles in Battlefield 2[edit]

Doesn't fit into wikipedia. A list of info that is only helpful to a person who plays or has played battlefield 2. Similar list have been deleted in the past.All relevant info is found within the main article.--M8v2 01:51, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Battlefield 2[edit]

Doesn't fit into wikipedia. A list of info that is only helpful to a person who plays or has played battlefield 2. Similar list have been deleted in the past.All relevant info is found within the main article.--M8v2 01:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reason as the list of vehicles

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Halstead[edit]

Martin Halstead was nominated for deletion on 2005-12-20. The result of the discussion was "speedy keep because nomination withdrawn". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Halstead.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as a short article with no context (CSD A1). -- Merope 14:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal amy[edit]

There is no Metal Amy! This is fanmade GrandMasterGalvatron 17:56, 19 October 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 was speedy close. This is a problem that doesn't require deletion. Please use the move function or request one at requests for moving if it may be controversial or it can't be done. MER-C 11:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership equity[edit]

should be called "Owners equity" Octopus-Hands 11:44, 19 October 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 was keep and discuss elsewhere. — CharlotteWebb 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum theory[edit]

The article's talk page contains under Talk:Quantum theory#expert needed discussion of whether "quantum theory" or "quantum mechanics" is the more general category.

That discussion appears at this time to favor the view that QM is the name for the general theory, which makes a page with this title inappropriate.

David R. Ingham 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such consensus on the talk page. A suggestion on the talk page to merge with quantum mechanics was rejected with only one vote in favor. This AfD is raised in error and should be summarily dismissed. --Michael C. Price talk 05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could have waited longer, but the discussion showed no sign of justifying the page. David R. Ingham 06:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have waited longer. This AfD is in violation of the the guidelines which say that talk page resolution should be sought first. And, as I said, the merge vote went against any change. --Michael C. Price talk 06:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a text book for guidance, I find in Bjorken and Drell (1965), chapter 11 (page 2 of the second volume):

Our approach is best illustrated by the electromagnetic field, The potentials A(x) satisfy the Maxwell wave equations and may be considered as describing a dynamical system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom. By this we mean that A(x) at each point of space may be considered an independent generalized coordinate. To make the transition from classical to quantum theory, we must, according to the general principles proclaimed in Chap. 1, elevate coordinates and their conjugate momenta to operators in the Hilbert space of possible physical states and impose quantum conditions upon them. This is the canonical quantization procedure. It is a straightforward extension to field functions, which obey differential wave equations derivable from a lagrangian, of the quantization procedure of non-reLativistic mechanics. When it is done, there emerges a particle interpretation of the electromagnetic field-in the sense of Bohr's principle of complementarity.
If photons emerge in such a natural way from the quantization of the Maxwell field, one is led to ask whether other particles whose existence is observed in nature are also related to force fields by the same quantization procedure. On this basis Yukawa predicted the existence of the meson from knowledge of the existence of nuclear forces. Conversely, it is natural from this point of view to associate with each kind of observed particle in nature a field (x) which satisfies an assumed wave equation. A particle interpretation of the field (x) is then obtained when we carry through the canonical quantization program.

They find nothing revolutionary about this. It is just proceeding to fields, according to the standard methods of quantum mechanics. The first volume is called Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and the second Relativistic Quantum Fields, but there is no suggestion that these are distinct theories. David R. Ingham 01:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contrast this to Messiah's text (that might precede this in a curriculum) in which chapters are spent discussing the surprising and fundamental differences between QM and classical physics. David R. Ingham 06:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page. --Michael C. Price talk 06:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messiah makes the point that if electromagnetic fields were not quantized, they would allow measurements to violate the uncertainty principle, so the underlying physics of field theory was already present in early QM. QFT is an approach to making quantum mechanical calculations. David R. Ingham 14:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet quantum field theory and quantum mechanics are taught in separate courses. I wonder why... :-) --Michael C. Price talk 14:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, PLEASE READ THIS!

Nobody is coming here to LEARN Quantum Theory. People just want to learn about it! The history of it, or brief history of it. We just want to read and get a general idea of what it is. When I come to the page, and see all of this nonsense about it being deleted, I can't really learn ANYTHING about physics because I don't know if any of it is real or not, when MOST of it is! The person that made this page, never said that what they wrote down and reported here was the end all be all about this subject. Just RELAX! You are putting seeds of doubt in everyones head. That is wrong. Or maybe you are just upset and jealous that he/she got here first, and YOU wanted to do the physics page. Thats just great, "nerd fights". Just relax, and go watch some Star Trek TNG.

I'll watch it with you. ;)

  • CommentDoes that mean you just want to keep it until the end of the week?  :)--Isotope23 14:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment corrected. Fuzzy orthography at work... --Pjacobi 14:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is clearly erroneous -- I have suggested on the talk page that we vote on whether or not quantum theory should become a pure disambiguation page. --Michael C. Price talk 12:46, 22 October 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 was Speedy keep. Nominated by an apparent single-purpose account, fixing NPOV issues does not require AfDing, and debate is highly snowbally toward keeping anyway. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tablighi Jamaat[edit]

Biased and very untrue comments. Streetfighter23 15:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of this nomination. If the article contains "biased and very untrue comments" then this should be sorted out on the its talk page, which already contains considerable discussion. The article is already flagged for neutrality check; the right thing at this stage is to leave it at that and let the authors get on with it. BTLizard 10:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Disregard my edit summary. I'm saying "keep", regardless of what I inadvertently typed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:43, 20 October 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.

Why not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.215.197 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Catchpole 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagar Metropolitan City[edit]

Obvious Hoax. Pretty amusing to know that ancient cities in India were called "Metropolitan City" ! Google returned 872 hits, with almost all of them referring to Bangalore. The purported name is mentioned in only one book. Seems to be obvious Original Research. Delete as per WP:OR, WP:VAIN and WP:NON. Trish Kalakar 12:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)This was users first edit[reply]

  • Be careful before calling the work of others a hoax please. The person who marked this page for deletion is obviously not an avid reader of history. The concept of "Metropolitian City" is not a new one. Please read the book which I have referred to and you will see that the authors themselves call it "The Greater Metropolitian Region". The work has been reported by Carla M. Sinopoli and Kathleen D. Morrison. Instead of adding hasty tags, the reader should have been sensible enough to contact me and ask his questions and concerns. Perhaps request a rename of the page. Obviously this user must be novice at wikipedia. Please remove the tag immedietly before I bring in an admin.Dineshkannambadi 01:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More info on source for Vijayanagar Metropolitian City
  1. Carla M. Sinopoli, 1993, Pots and Palaces: The Earthenware ceramics of the Noblemen's Quarter of Vijayanagara, New Delhi.
  2. Kathleen D. Morrison, 1993,Supplying the City:The role of reservoirs in an Indian Urban Landscape, Asian Perspectives.
The work of these two scholars and several others at Vijayanagara lasted over a period of 20 years funded by various organizations including the Archaeological Survey of India, Karnataka Directorate of Archaeology amd Museums etc. The work in fact goes on as of today. The work done by many scholars has been put together into the book referenced on the concerned page by well known historians John Fritz and George Michell.
Google search!!! way to Go Trish Kalakar—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dineshkannambadi (talk • contribs) .
  • Extremely Strong Keep - This is ridiculous. The existence of metropolitan cities like Rome are never disputed but an Indian city comes up and immediate AfD? I smell more than just sockpuppety here. I smell some good old fashioned 19th century Indophobia. The cosmopolitan nature of the Vijaynagara Empire is well established by (guess what) western historians themselves.Hkelkar 05:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with Indophobia. The nominator is Indian. By the way, there is no article on Rome Metropolian City. utcursch | talk 07:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well given the self-hatred and negationism rampant in my country (I am also Indian) that doesn;t surprise me at all.Hkelkar 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support renaming.Hkelkar 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95 % of "Indophobes" live in India  Doctor Bruno  13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename to something more appropriate. The city was not known as "Vijayanagar Metropolitan City". utcursch | talk 07:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The Vijayanagara city was probably the New York of its times. It was the capital city of the empire which changed the course of history of entire South India. Without it, history of India and S India in particular would have been very very different. And it'd be a travesty of WP policies to even think of deleting this article. But like Utcursch says, maybe the title can be changed to something more intuitive. Sarvagnya 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename only keep if it is renamed to Vijayanagar or merge with Kingdom of Vijayanagar.Nothing more nothing less - raking up new names to add to percieved importance is a bad practice.TerryJ-Ho
  • I have no problem with renaming. Merging with main page would only lengthen the page further and readers may loose interest, especially since I am going for copy edit/FAC peer review shortly. What is the best choice? "Ancient City of Vijayanagara", "Imperial city of Vijayanagara", "Royal Vijayanagara", "Medieval Vijayanagara", "The Ancient capital of Vijayanagara Empire". Lets us not forget the Hampi, the religious/royal core of Vijayanagara is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Suggest pleaseDineshkannambadi 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename useful article, but yeah, the name appears to be a WP:NEO. Vijayanagara is already such a large article that a fork article about the historic city is a good idea here. Dineshkannambadi suggested several good names that should be discussed on the talk page (I'm partial to "Ancient City of Vijayanagara"). I imagine there are more books than just the one referenced in the article that have covered the historic Imperial capital of Vijayanagara... it might be beneficial to see what other researchers have called it.--Isotope23 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The article is not WP:OR. So, the reason itself for marking it Afd is not valid. While keeping this article after renaming is a good option, the current name is as good as the names suggested by Dineshkannambadi above. Also, this name is used in the published book by the researcher. Either way (rename or dont rename), that should be discussed in talk page of the article. - KNM Talk 17:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If only used in the one book it fails WP:NEO and probably shouldn't be used as the title for this article.--Isotope23 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep
  1. This is NOT vanity. The city was there centuries ago
  2. This is NOT original research. I can list 50 book on this topic if I go to Connemera
  3. This was the capital city of an Emperor
Rename and remove the word Metropolitan  Doctor Bruno  13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep - User Utcurschji is opinion is thought provoking. The existence of metropolitan cities like Rome are never disputed but an Indian city comes up and immediate AfD? Why someone think that Indian cities are so much under-rated. I consider this AfD discussion as a humiliation towards Indians.Nileena joseph 14:01, 25 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W. Jarrett Campbell[edit]

W. Jarrett Campbell

Delete, self-written vanity article. Λinfo 01:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woop woop, boring alert! Almost pure vanity, highly concentrated, with hints of spam. Delete. BTLizard 09:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wrote this article about myself but only after I found my name linked to a blank page from Carolina RailHawks F.C.. I thought it was better to have a self-written page than a broken link. The article is factual and unlike BTLizard I do not think it's self-aggrandizing but I guess others should judge that. To say this is Spam is a bit much imho. The page is linked now from several other articles and serves the purpose to give detail on a person referenced in other WikiPedia articles. But if you guys don't think it has a purpose, feel free to delete it. --Wjarrettc 10:28, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In My Heart[edit]

Unsourced and probably unverifiable speculation about the future release of an album and its contents. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Donald Albury 10:28, 20 October 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 was close non-debate and add a ((merge)) tag. — CharlotteWebb 17:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinsarmar[edit]

completely unnecessary, can easily be merged with Aetherius. calaiermiant 10:46, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock paper Scissors slap![edit]

Invented game with no significance Kamiawolf 10:48, 20 October 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 was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YAM (Yet Another Mailer)[edit]

Yet another mailer. Literally. No evidence of significance, user base or being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Guy 11:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JIP
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No one wants to delete it and there's no consensus to merge. If someone still feels like it should be merged, it's an editorial decision that anyone can do (or revert). - Bobet 12:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical_criticism[edit]

Biblical criticism is redundant with Criticism of the Bible. They are exactly the same topics. Doesn't really matter which on goes. Any text thought salvagable can be dumped into the other. GoodSamaritan 11:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now merge based on the discussion below. GoodSamaritan 05:46, 1 November 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay and bisexual people in video games[edit]

Article is not noteworthy and has no real use. Most of the information displayed is debatable at the least and unverified. Removing the factually questionable material would leave a short list of little use to the Wikipedia user. Wolf ODonnell 11:54, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SeeNx[edit]

Tiniest of tiny pages for non-notable company. Alexa.com traffic places it somewhere outside the top million (though I know this isn't enough in itself). Google has only 4,800 hits. Interestingly one of the top 10 pages happens to correspond to one of the usernames that made an edit, which says advert to me. No one has updated it in months. It's non-encyclopaedic. Andymarczak 12:14, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot holes in Harry Potter[edit]

Barely encyclopedic fancruft, intrinsically and irreparably original research. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 12:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the other hand, you are the creator of this article, yet have not expanded on it. If this information is worthy of entry at all, it should form part of the main article about the book. Andymarczak 07:23, 24 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleuth (Internet RPG)[edit]

Non-notable online game; fails WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 15:36, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apotheosis Publishing[edit]

Non-notable RPG publishing company; fails WP:CORP. Prod contested. Percy Snoodle 12:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

extra comment while I'm at it, let me shamelessly plug the WP:BK proposal. None of the books they published in the 80s (if any exist!) come close to meeting the criteria of that proposed guideline. Pascal.Tesson 15:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above user, like User:68.222.23.153, is likely another sockpuppet of Randy Richards/Cryogenesis.--Robbstrd 00:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't sock puppets all have the SAME IP address??? Different IP addresses could indicate possible meat puppets which, ironically, is what user Robbstrd is. Or they could be - egads - fans of the company and its books.--Cryogenesis 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not necessarily. As for meatpuppetry, I'm working at the behest of no one, Randy.--Robbstrd 18:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I guess its just an amazing coincidence that Fairsing belongs to the "Greyhawk Wiki Project", just like Robbstrd, and that Quode is a known cohort of Robbstrd, who in turn is also a self-proclaimed hater of the author of the Dreadmire book. No, there are no meat puppets here. Its all just a coincidence. These are not the drones you want. Move along.
  • Comment Also, AfD nominations are considered independent of each other, and thus your AfD reference has no bearing.--Cryogenesis 16:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD nominations are considered independent of each other, and thus this has no bearing. Beyond this, Necromancer games has 37 books, so your claim is simply inaccurate.--Rosicrucian 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The other books were actually developed by other companies and then later released (under license) by Necromancer Games. Not the same thing as publishing your own books. "Necromancer Games has only published four books" is a true statement.--Cryogenesis 15:50, 24 October 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 was Speedy keep as nominator has since supported keep and there are no other people supporting deletion. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tibia (computer game)[edit]

NN online game; fails WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE. Percy Snoodle 12:59, 20 October 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 was speedy deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather at 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC). Metros232 15:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DIMITRIS ANDRIKOPOULOS[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BIO, being a son of an Olympian does not constitute notability. Contested prod. MER-C 13:03, 20 October 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 was delete. DS 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ferro[edit]

Notability not established with reliable sources. Article is pretty much unverifiable. A Google search for "Frank Ferro" + Panama returns 26 hits almost all of them from MySpace or unrelated links. Metros232 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as per my comments above. Author has blanked page; I believe policy says somewhere that this is a go-ahead to assume the author has given up and delete an article. This vote stands as long as the author does not put the material back. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:16, 24 October 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 was delete. - Bobet 12:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spinach with Chocolate Sauce[edit]

Delete. This subject does not pass the proposed WP:BK criteria (although it does seem to be on some elementary school reading lists). It has an Amazon rank of over 1.4 million. [Check Google hits] 340 Google hits (41 "unique") mostly from vendor sites. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 13:18, 20 October 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 was delete. - Bobet 12:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spellbinder Games (USA)[edit]

Prod contested. My original prod rationale was "Not notable per WP:CORP. As far as I can tell they have never published a children's book or at least none that Amazon ever heard about. So it seems they have published one book. One." User Cryogenesis (talk · contribs) claims that this company and its parent company Apotheosis Publishing published books in the 80's which are now out of print.

  • Comment This claim in unverifiable and doubtful. Moreover this user has a very particular interest in all things related to Randy Richards who is the author of the one book published by this company: Dreadmire. Incidentally, that book is also up for deletion. Pascal.Tesson 13:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not everything is verifiable online. There is a real word out there with a lot of information that isn't online at all. As to my "particular interest in all things related to Randy Richards", so do you Pascal.Tesson, Quode and Robbstrd as you can see by their edits. I was only mildly interested in the subject, which is NOT Randy Richards, but the popular book Dreadmire and all things related to IT. My "particular interest" occured when meat puppets called in by sock puppet Quode appeared out of the woodwork and started editing my articles mercilessly, trying to show the author in a bad light, violating all sorts of Wikipedia rules and guidelines in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryogenesis (talk • contribs)
  • Comment My interest in this subject came when I noticed (doing Newpage patrol) that you had created 10 separate articles about types of oozes and advised against it. I would also note that I have edited all over Wikipedia but yes, when I see signs of vanity editing I tend to follow the trails so that the necessary cleanup can be done. Also if this publisher has published children books I would be happy to have a title. We could then look it up in the library of congress and actually verify that it exists. Pascal.Tesson 18:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which is something you should do yourself. Your sole purpose for creating a user name was to nominate the Dreadmire article for deletion. I have asked Randy Richards to come here and defend the book but he seems in agreement with you, that D&D has no place on Wikipedia.--Cryogenesis 16:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The notion that D&D has no place on Wikipedia is absurd. Considering its fanbase and its inspiration to the Computer Gaming industry, as well as two Motion Pictures and a Cartoon Series, it unquestionably a part of our Culture.--RobNoxious 01:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My apologies to Mr. Richards. He did not say D&D had no place on Wikipedia. According to this link,[29]he said D&D, its co-creators Gary Gygax and Dave Arenson, WotC/TSR, World of Greyhawk, Dragonlance & authors, and Dungeon/Dragons magazines, SHOULD be on Wikipedia - and then added later that Len Lakofka might should be there too.--Cryogenesis 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I can assure you I have not lost my cool. But I'd like to point out that WP:CORP is pretty clear: having a product does not make your company notable. Pascal.Tesson 22:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but no, your line below this belies that attitude. It is obvious that there is a bit of personal feeling in this debate, and that's a problem that should set off warning bells in your head. Consider this a chance to be a good person.. Plus WP:CORP is not pretty clear. It actually starts off saying it is only a rough guideline. But that doesn't even address my real concern, which was confusion with the UK Spellbinder. That's reason enough on its own to have some information. (In fact, I'd say that the disambig page at Spellbinder probably needs this information, but I'll leave that to others.FrozenPurpleCube 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, that sort of thinking leads to disambig pages which are so large that they are useless. And WP:CORP is clear: while it's not prescriptive it does indicate that corporations who fail to meet the criteria are likely to be deletable. Since this particular corporation is well below any of the criteria then WP:CORP is in fact very relevant. As for what you perceive as my negative attitude towards this company, again, it is nothing personnal but yes, I do tend to get ticked when an article is being supported by essentially one user and his sockpuppets (well, plus you!) and when the arguments for keeping it involve what seem to be desparate lies. I'm surprised to find you completely unphased by the concern that the content of the article is unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 00:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, you're not exactly making a good case with me by simply citing policy pages. Sorry, but I find it hard to discuss things with people who just throw those out. Anyway, I've never seen a disambig page that's useless due to size, and frankly, I can't even imagine one. Maybe if it were poorly sorted, but that's a slightly different problem. In any case, two entries isn't that much. More if we move it to Spellbinder (currently at 9). And no matter how annoyed you get, the important thing is to be civil. Annoyance tends to lead to the situation becoming aggravated, not resolved. It certainly distresses me, especially given And no, the entire contents of the article are not unverifiable. Dreadmire at least is listed on Amazon.com and various other sellers. So I'm satisfied with that. Anything else is merely questionable. And they aren't any less notable than many of the minor companies listed in the RPG publisher's category(which is where they should be placed IMHO, so I'm going to do that). Whether or not most of those articles should go through an AfD is something worth considering though. FrozenPurpleCube 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ha ha ha. Is that the best evidence they have? "Yes we published books but we don't remember their titles and we lost our copies in Hurricane Katrina so you'll have to trust us on that". This is even more laughable than I first thought. This has got to go if only per WP:V. Pascal.Tesson 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your "ha ha ha" shows you are gleeful at the prospect of getting Spellbinder Games deleted. You should take Manticore's advice and pull back from this "jihad," as one user put it. Also, your comment "is that the best evidence they have" indicates you think this is some sort of game or contest. The 20-year old books existed, and no it may not be proveable online, but not everything is online. There are several books from my own childhood that I cannot find online anywhere, including Library of Congress online and WorldCat online. The online record is not complete.--Cryogenesis 17:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentHow convienient. The above user, like User:68.222.23.153, is likely another sockpuppet of Randy Richards/Cryogenesis.--Robbstrd 23:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Amazing how Katrina wiped out the whole Spellbinder Games and Apotheosis Publishing section of the library of congress. That hurricane sure was something. Also note that WorldCat has no trace of either of these books. Pascal.Tesson 00:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what its worth, Spellbinder Games was at Dragon Con and Gen Con.--Cryogenesis 15:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They may have been there, but not as dealers/exhibitors: GenCon-[30]; DragonCon-[31]--Robbstrd 20:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD nominations are considered independent of each other, and thus this has no bearing. Beyond this, Necromancer games has 37 books, so your claim is simply inaccurate.--Rosicrucian 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And Necromancer Games have won significant awards. Is there any evidence as to the awards Spellbinder Games has won? --Pak21 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trivial awards do not count, sorry.--Cryogenesis 16:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FYI for those that don't know, the "EN World" website was originally created as a message board to support a community project to design a campaign world for 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons. The "ENnies" started in 2002, hardly enough time to become "significant". They are currently the equivalent of a bowling trophy, albeit in the gaming community. I am sure they are very important to some people, just like a bowling or dance trophy is to some people. No offense to the people at the EN World website, who I am sure are good people that work very hard, but the ENnies are indeed a trivial award. A Pulitzer is a non-trivial award. A little perspective, please.--Cryogenesis 16:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're not up on the biz, are ya? People are putting notice of nomination on their product. Maybe if you actually had anything to do with RPGs...mythusmage 23:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some people put dance and bowling awards on their resumes. If its all you've got, hey, its a great thing. Unfortunately, bowling, dance, and ENnie trophies are all trivial, as Wikipedia defines it.--Cryogenesis 15:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please advise as to where Wikipedia defines trivial and non-trivial awards and trophies. Regardless, It is not the equivilent of a Bowling Trophy, it is the equivilent of winning a championship in the Professional Bowling Association. There is absolutely no more prestigious and recognized award in d20 gaming.--RobNoxious 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Same as a championship in the PBA? Really. A 50 year old contest that has thousands of contestants? You may need to step back a gain some perspective.--Cryogenesis 04:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very little in this article is verifiable, other than that Dreadmire exists as a product on Amazon. It is almost entirely the claims of the subject of the article, as relayed through the website and forum posts.--Rosicrucian 03:58, 29 October 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 was keep. Merging, cleanup, etc. might be an option to discuss elsewhere, but there obviously no consensus to delete this. — CharlotteWebb 18:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time Cube[edit]

This has previously been debated for deletion a couple of times and kept (see Talk:Time Cube/Delete), but I would like to revisit it, not least in the light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry (second nomination). What we have here is presented as a scientific theory, which it clearly is not. No scientific theory can possibly claim as immutable fact that pi=3.20. Because it is so patently absurd it has not been discussed in any reputable peer-reviewed journals, which makes it pretty close to impossible to balance the absurdity without venturing into original research. There is no doubt that the idea has a certain degree of notability, but the theory itself is simply unsupported by any credible peer-reviewed evidence, so is fundamentally unverifiable. What we can verify is that Gene Ray expounds this twaddle, and we can and should document it at Gene Ray, but not here.

Obviously redirection is an editorial action which requires no Super PowersTM, but I don't want to just do that, I want to stimulate a proper debate on the issue and hopefully achieve a consensus view that this subject is one we cannot cover separately, which would ensure that we don't have to have the same debate again in a month form now. Guy 13:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"JzG" and/or "Guy", see the following link, [32], for a peer-reviewed Academic journal contribution discussing Time Cube. Yes, it's been published in a university academic journal, and was peer-reviewed. So already, we're seeing how much of a monumental, massive and important theory Time Cube really is.
That's not a serious academic article. Bwithh 17:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it isn't. It's about a theory - Time Cube is the proposition that time is cubic. Why else would it go into detail about why the theory is wrong? See the problem? Guy 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use AfD for content disputes. The web site and the "theory" are notable and encyclopedic (even being presented at universities). If you have an issue with how the article is presented, discuss it on the talk page, not here. This AfD is inappropriate and should be closed. — Omegatron 14:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's here because I think there should be no article with this title. That is a proper matter for AfD to decide. Merge and redirect is also a valid outcome of an AfD debate. Guy 15:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you think that an article about the "Time Cube" website is appropriate, but it should not be called "Time Cube"? — Omegatron 21:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think an article specifically covering the Time Cube as a website would be a clear delete per WP:WEB. It's as a theory or meme that I'm still undecided about the notability. If anything the website is only notable as media tied to what is possibly a notable crackpot theory.--Isotope23 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, exactly. It's almost impossible to work out fomr the article exactly what we're claiming it is, or its claim to notability might therefore be. A redirect to Gene Ray would at lest have the virtue of making it unambiguously clear that this is about one man's absurd theory and the ridicule (and flying-spaghetti-monster stylee popularity) it has attracted. Guy 15:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the theory is ludicrous. So what? That doesn't make it any less deserving of an article. — Omegatron 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but the fact that the article doesn't comply with Wiki guidelines for original research does. -- Moondigger 17:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well to that I would say it is not deserving of an article unless there are enough notable sources to establish it as a well known crackpot theory. I'm less concerned with if it is factual or not and more concerned with if it is notable. The website itself fails WP:WEB pretty roundly with most of the references to it in non-WP:RS blogs. I'm still undecided about the notability of the theory itself though. If kept this article needs a good hard whack with the no original research stick.--Isotope23 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already pointed out that Gene Ray already has his own article, which I have not suggested should be deleted. Time Cube can be (and is) mentioned in that article. Fine, if its widely known enough. What I'm saying is that the Time Cub e article seems to have no encyclopedic value and seems to exist merely to mock Gene Ray's ravings. This is not an "educational" article, its a mockery. Bwithh 00:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for him, Gene Ray doesn't understand the joke Bwithh 21:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Plus, the FSM si clearlyt intended to be a joke and is described as such. Guy 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering what publicity you are refering to. Could you please clarify? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Jitse Niesen", Time Cube has been debated on two separate occasions at two separate universities: MIT in 2002, and Georgia Tech in 2005. In 2003, Dr Ray was interviewed on TechTV's "Unscrewed" television programme, hosted by Martin Sargent. He has been interviewed on numerous Internet radio programs, including FreeTalkLive, RantRadio, RadioKOL, EYada (now defunct), and he was interviewed about one day ago, I take it, on a New York "WHRW-FM" radio channel, on a show hosted by one Charles Berman. TimeCube.com has been mentioned on a vast quantity of websites, as a Google-search will reveal. An Academic paper was written on the subject of Time Cube by a Taiwanese university student, Bei Dawei. In short, there has been a huge quantity of publicity. So yeah, that's the publicity.
The MIT lecture (and I suspect the Georgia Tech lecture and these other "publicity" events) as well was not a "debate". It was a freakshow. Bwithh 12:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of wether he made a fool of himself it was still publicity.Tranqulizer 16:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"huge quantity of publicity" is abit over the top. But yeah, I agree that there is enough publicity for an article on wp. Tranqulizer 12:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... I have a lot of sympathy for Metaspheres' views, even if I don't share his conclusions (maybe in a year or two, depending on what happens to WP) Bwithh 17:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I get what you mean; I have a little bit of hard time generalising it. In fact, I have a little bit of hard time generalising my counterargument. Here's my counterargument in its purest, unedited form: "One man's junk is another's treasure!" and "where exactly do you draw line between junk and factoids that are interesting in some contexts?" ... My problem when generalising your argument is this: Yes, trimming stuff no one is ever interested about is important. I just don't see how it applies to "shock site" or "Time Cube", as those are probably within realm of topics that are, marginally, worth discussing. My problem generalising my counterargument is this: I'm not utterly comfortable defending these two articles vigorously, and admit they're on the very boundary between plausible and not plausible. All I'm saying is this: WP:UA is an example of Wikipedia's strengths. Wikipedia's strength is that we can cover a little bit more eccentric topics. "Eccentric" can not only mean "a bit unusual choice for a topic", but it will also mean "information about computer topics that isn't 3-4 years out of date". (If the "real" encyclopaedias ignore the "worthless" net culture topics, exactly how the heck do they cover it at all?) Sometimes the topic is a bit fuzzy one. It's entirely different matter whether or not that stuff is junk or not. In closing: I concur that Time Cube or shock sites could be discussed elsewhere, in some other article, as a section or something; I disagree that they'd be entirely worthless topics to cover. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.5.186 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above poster is a single-purpose account editing only Time Cube related articles. Stylistic elements imply that the same poster may have also editted Gene Ray under one or more other IPs as well. Serpent's Choice 12:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Serpent's Choice", yeah I pay great attention to Time Cube related articles on Wikipedia, for the reasons I outlined above in my comment. See also my [34] 31337 website—on which may be found valuable Cubic discourse to stimulate 4-corneristic thought.
above poster is an IP address. Please assume good faith, you know nothing of his motives, intent, or purposes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the above IP address and the contents of what he posted match the pattern of User:Time Cube Guy perfectly. He's exhausted whatever good faith was warranted him long, long ago; the ArbCom once rejected a case brought against him by describing him "an incoherent POV-pushing anon" who could be blocked on sight without need of their approval. We don't actually block him since that IP range is from a dialup ISP, but his edits and comments on Time Cube articles are usually just reverted without comment these days. That said, I still think the article should be kept; the attention of this one particular loon is irrelevant to that. Bryan 21:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Bryan, I think I'm still acting in good faith, and have previously acted in good faith many times. I view that "ArbCom" decision as unfair and unjustified, especially as they merely dismissed me cursorily with a "summary judgement" as it was called, not even bothering to weigh and consider the detailed evidence. But I feel that I am a considerate and productive Wikipedia contributor, and that whatever controversy or disagreements I may have caused were not of excessive proportions and were acceptable under the Wikipedia guideline of "Be Bold".

"Keep"--I need a good laugh/remove myself from my evil world view. Strong Keep Notable, per everyone else. --Vaergoth 11:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look at the edit history. Changes to make the article about a website propounding an absurd theory, rather than about a theory of everything, are swiftly reverted. Guy 10:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am -- honestly -- curious as to how the supporters of keeping this article feel it meets current policy guidelines. What references for this article are being considered reliable sources? And, frankly, what is this article about, from a category perspective? If we cannot agree whether we are talking about a pseudoscience theory, a website, a misguided attempt at humor, or simply a meme, then the article probably does not meet the verifiability standards. If this is, as was mentioned, "the canonical example of a crank theory" then surely something verifiable addresses it as such. Otherwise, why would this not be better served merged with Gene Ray into a single, more cognizant article? Serpent's Choice 05:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the reliability of each of the the sources over on the article's talk page. If you have specific problems with these references, by all means bring them up. I suggest using the article's talk: page, though. AfD shouldn't be for an in-depth discussion of article contents like this, and general assertions about how the references as a whole are reliable/unreliable aren't terribly useful. Bryan 05:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Serpent's Choice", we have plenty of external links in the Gene Ray and Time Cube articles, and while it's possible that some of them may contain a few erroneous sections that are unreliable, I feel we have a sufficient wealth of information on the subject to make the articles adequately accurate. I agree with Bryan that it's not helpful to simply make vague blanket assertions about possible reliability and to not provide specific pointers that could be used to resolve the issue.

Weak keep so long as the linkfarm at the end can be converted into references to show the article isn't OR. Percy Snoodle 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my weak keep was deleted by Jitse Niesenand replaced by his weak delete[35]. I'm going to assume that it was an accident, but please don't do it again. Percy Snoodle 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My edit indeed removed Percy's comment. I'm terribly sorry about that. I certainly did not intent to do this, and I have no idea how it could have happened. Thanks for assuming good faith. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:51, 25 October 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 was weak consensus to delete - if the term is successful enough by itself to continue existing and being used without the article, then eventually someone will re-create it. For now, it goes. DS 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kryder's law[edit]

This article violates WP:NEO and WP:NOR, at the very least. The concept is identical to Moore's law and has not been given its own name by anyone outside of Wikipedia. The article itself states that "Kryder's Law probably wouldn't even exist if it weren't for Wikipedia". One of the first Google results for the term "Kryder's law" (of which there are less than 500) is a blog criticizing Wikipedia for inventing the term. The rest are mostly mirrors of Wikipedia or the Scientific American article.

Delete and mention the concept of hard drive density and the appropriate numbers in Moore's law without using the neologism "Kryder's law". — Omegatron 13:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only "reference" which uses the phrase "Kryder's Law" is the original Scientific American article, in the title. The other references are about disk space, but are not references for the term. Ken Arromdee 17:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see sources that use this term in relation to disk space. That to me justifies the article.--Isotope23 17:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except in the Scientific American article title, the references cited in the article do *not* use the term. Ken Arromdee 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are other references out there that do use the term. I did some due dilligence and investigated outside just what is linked in the article.--Isotope23 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But they got the term from this article; it did not exist previously. — Omegatron 21:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but it exists now... where it came from is irrelevant. The time to delete this would have been before external sources picked it up and began using it; when it was still a Wikipedia-only protologism.--Isotope23 00:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what it is. No one is using this term outside of our article, and when they are, it's to criticize us for inventing it. Omegatron 04:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. You're trying to save WP face, but your VfD is the equivalent of a cover-up.
Wikipedia must pay for its crimes. The time to have prevented this thing was months ago, and the cat, nor those criticisms, are never going back in the bag again. Yeago 05:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err... huh? WP:AGF, but that made no sense.--Isotope23 16:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? — Omegatron 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No significant number of outside sources use the term. Ken Arromdee 17:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A scientific law is an empirical observation. That's what "scientific law" means. We define it as "a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior". SciAm did not define the term or claim anywhere that it represented the law that they spoke of; they simply used it as the (whimsical) title of their article. Wikipedia was the first to use it as if it were an actual law, and it is therefore a Wikipedia-created neologism that needs to be killed. We are not in the business of creating new terminology; we only report on terminology that already exists. — Omegatron 21:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See scientific law and rule of thumb. There is a big difference. By claiming it is a purported scientific law you are setting up a straw man. It's not being proposed at that level any more than Moore's Law is. And SciAm did use the term first. You are pushing a point of view that they weren't serious. That is your interpretation. This critique is already mentioned in the article. There is no basis for deletion.--agr 02:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules about not pushing points of views apply to the content of articles. Decisions *about* articles, like deleting them for non-notability, are not subject to the NPOV rule. Otherwise, we could never delete any articles, because all deletions imply a point of view that the subject of the article isn't notable. We must decide whether the use of the term is a real use; we can't avoid making that decision. Such decisions don't violate the rule about points of view. Ken Arromdee 05:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:DP "Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy and not opinion." The article proposed for deletion is based on an article of the same name in a reputable, indeed highly regarded, publication. It's subject, the rapid improvement in disk capacity is notable, arguably earth-shaking. Other sources are cited. The bottom line is that you do not agree with the subject and, especially, the name. But it is SciAm's name, not ours. --agr 11:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that since whether something is notable, or whether Wikipedia invented a neologism, are opinions, they violate the WP:DP rule about deleting articles based on opinion? Ken Arromdee 15:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that disk space growth is a real phenomenon, but it's a real phenomenon that is not in any meaningful sense associated with the term "Kryder's Law". If you want to keep this article because you think we need a disk space growth article, then rename it to "disk space growth" and take out the references to "Kryder's Law". (But I suspect nobody would even think the article was worth creating if it wasn't for the name.)
(Incidentally, this doesn't violate WP:ASR. A self-reference is saying something like "In this Wikipedia article..." Claiming that something is connected to Wikipedia isn't automatically a self-reference, and you're allowed to say "Wikipedia's article about..." as long as you aren't implying that the reader is reading the text on Wikipedia. Ken Arromdee 17:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It used to violate ASR. I reworded it. — Omegatron 21:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ayeum. Yes, but you seemed to have smudged the intent behind WP:SELF. Yeago 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you are suggestiing is a merge. There are other mechanisms for that. It is not consistant with deletion, which destroyes edit histories, talk pages and the like.--agr 02:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know Omegatron said it, but whether the article itself states that Wikipedia created the term isn't really relevant. We need to figure that out for ourselves. And Wikipedia did, in fact, create the term as a name for a law. The Scientific American article is titled "Kryder's Law", but that's an attempt to write a clever title, not an attempt to name a law.
Even if you insist, beyond all sense, that Scientific American created the term, it just isn't a widely used term. It's still a neologism, all you've done is insisted that it's Scientific American's neologism rather than Wikipedia's. There's still no reason to write an article about it unless a substantial number of people actually use it. Ken Arromdee 23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for another version of your headless rant, but you haven't said anything new.Yeago 18:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is deleted, please consider updating Wikipedia and public opinion, or please archive this page and discussion in the WP namespace as it is a prime example of WPs exogenous influence (regardless of how ashamed some editors are of this particular instance). Yeago 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the claim that Kryder created the term anywhere in the Scientific American article. The other two online sources don't even mention Kryder, let alone Kryder's law. So I think the article is wrong, and Wikipedia created the term. Ken Arromdee 15:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia created the term, and it has not yet been picked up by anyone else significant. The article needs to be deleted for violating WP:NEO. — Omegatron 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific American was the first to use the term. I've edited the article to make that clear. The claim that Kryder named it after himself was added in a rather contentious edit on Sept. 12, 2006 [36].--agr 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you think that deleting the article is the best way to go about this. I'd agree with a merge, but the point of this isn't to right a wrong. Wikipedia is never out there to "save face". Wikipedia is not trying to win over billions of people. It has not once made a press statement about it's "credibility".
All that aside, what do you suppose would happen if the law becomes will known by that name? Would you then want wikipedia to never have that article, because it would send the "wrong message". What is the point of deleting this article, Omegatron?
Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research — we don't do that here at Wikipedia. Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: no original research and verifiability. Where in there does it say that we should delete all "neologisms". I am not asking for the term to be defined. That would be against WP:OR. I am asking for the article to state it's sources, and say what it is. If "Kryder's Law" is a copy of another law, state it. State your sources. If I say it is a new word, I have to state my sources.
Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Lets not state the term is THE term. Lets not justify the word. Lets be the middle ground on what the term is generally accepted as, and where it came from.-- ¢² Connor K.   18:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we try to cool this down? I don't agree anyone made a mistake. The original editor chose the same name as an article in a respected publication. But Omegatron has a point that we shouldn't imply the name is widely accepted when there is no citable authority that says it is. Should that change in the future, we can adjust. In the meantime, if Omegatron and his supporters can live with a move or merge, I think it is time to move on.--agr 19:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"if Omegatron and his supporters can live with a move or merge, I think it is time to move on."

Depends what you mean by "move or merge". Of course I have no problem with the concept of increasing hard drive size being presented; it's already presented in Moore's law#Formulations of Moore's Law, and it would be great if it was expanded with the relevant content from this article (but not including the term). If people really want to keep the stuff about Wikipedia inventing the term and criticism of Wikipedia, it should be moved to Criticism of Wikipedia (though I imagine the locally-active editors will delete it pretty quickly for being a trivial/unimportant example).
And yes, I would still like Kryder's law deleted. Turning it into a redirect gives the impression that it's a real term, when it's really just the title of a Scientific American article.

"All that aside, what do you suppose would happen if the law becomes will known by that name?"

Create an article about it, of course.

"What is the point of deleting this article, Omegatron?"

It's not a real term. Wikipedia doesn't have articles about made-up terminology. — Omegatron 19:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The full title of the above "made-up terminology" link is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. That is not what this article is about. No one, including Omegatron, seems to deny that this article has content that belongs in Wikipedia. We are only arguing about the name. That is not what AfD is for. Also see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion which gives wide latitude for redirects and specifically suggests redirects be retained if there is a useful edit history attached. If Omegatron insists on deletion of this article, we still have a disagreement. I guess we simply have to let the process run its course and let the moderator decide if deletion is the appropriate course, as opposed to a move or merge, and if there is a consensus for deletion.--agr 20:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant text:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Many articles of this nature describe new words or terms coined by a small group of friends. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. Meanings of words and phrases go in a dictionary, such as Wiktionary; however, adding your own new words and phrases to Wiktionary is also unacceptable. Wiktionary requires evidence that a word or phrase has been attested before it will accept it. A new word that one person or a small group of people have made up and are trying to make catch on is a neologism, and isn't acceptable at Wiktionary. Take a look at Urban Dictionary instead.

WP:NEO is actually mostly about words made up by other people. We're not even supposed to include those, yet this article is about a term made up by a Wikipedia editor. It has even less validity.

If you agree that the term was invented by a Wikipedia editor and is not in wide use or defined anywhere except our own article, then you agree that it should be deleted:

Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.

...

To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.

Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

— Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms

— Omegatron 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is not about the term Kryder's Law, it is about growth in disk drive capacity. That is a notable and verifiable subject. You are proposing to delete the article and its edit history because you don't like the title, which I am willing to change, even though the term was used first by Scientific American, a respected secondary source, not us. That is not a valid use of AfD. --agr 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was first used by Scientific American *as a title for an article*. It was *not* first used by Scientific American as a term for a law.
And while disk drive capacity is a valid topic for Wikipedia, pretty much everything about it worth salvaging from the Kryder's Law article is already in other articles. Ken Arromdee 01:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is about the term Kryder's law.
The growth in disk drive capacity will still be in Wikipedia. The article can be moved to a new title or merged with the info that's already in Moore's law, as we've already said several times. — Omegatron 02:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not the mechanism for moves and merges. I think I have made that point often enough. We'll just have to let the process go forward.--agr 10:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't? When did that change? Hiding Talk 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In theory any useful information in the Kryder's Law article should be merged into other articles that refer to disk space, but there really isn't much, if any, information that doesn't already exist somewhere. So there isn't anything to merge. Ken Arromdee 17:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A recommendation to merge is often the outcome of the AfD process, but if that is all that is needed there was no need in the first place to waste everyones time with an AfD. Just do the merge. There is no need to destroy edit history and the like. --agr 18:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you're making presumptions here that don't sit well with assuming good faith. Many a time people bring articles here because they want to form a consensus on what to do with them. A consensual decision on merging made in an afd is also more likely to be respected than a being bold edit. The outcome isn't always obvious at the outset and shouldn't be used to prejudge the nominator. Consensus is something formed through discussion, not observation. Hiding Talk 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken, maybe we did need this discussion, but I don't see the justification for insisting on deleting an article and its history when the result of that discussion appears to be agreement that the useful content should be merged or renamed.--agr 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take the point and support the Merge and redirect. Hiding Talk 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Kryder's Law" and the concept behind it are already mentioned at Moore's law. I think a redirect from Kryder's law to Moore's law is a reasonable solution with a continuing discussion of whether or not there are enough external sources to satisfy WP:NEO and keeping the term in the article.--Isotope23 20:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Isotope23 and now support Merge and redirect. Let me make one more comment on why deletion is not the way to go. This article has been criticized externally. One of the strengths of Wikipedia in response to criticism is the transparency of its editing process. If someone wants to verify that the term "Kryder's Law" first appeared in Wikipedia only after the Scientific American article, they currently can. If they want to know when criticism of the term first showed up in the article they can look that up too. If they want to follow the debate on the talk page and see who took what postions when, they can. However once the article is deleted all that edit history will no longer be accessible to the public. It will look like we have something to hide.--agr 11:14, 25 October 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 was keep. — CharlotteWebb 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cypriot refugee[edit]

A highly pov and unencylopedic article concerning the Cyprus conflict. There are already a host of pages which cover this kind of material, and at least those article make some attempt to balance the explanation of the conflict. They include: Cyprus dispute, Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict, Operation Atilla. The article is extremely one-sided, attempts by myself to neutralise it have been met with reverts by the creator. I did plan on rewriting it, but saw no point in yet another article covering the same material. A.Garnet 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just a blatant POV push by an editor whose bias and nationalism are clearly evident from his past edits. The displaced Greek Cypriots are dealt with in multiple other articles (as noted in the comment from A Garnet) so this information (POV as it is) is redundant. A quick read through of the paragraph '1963 Background' clearly shows the original editors deviation from accepted history. His implication that Turkish Cypriots were living in enclaves in order to gain partition of Cyprus and not, as was the case, becuase they had reason to fear for their lives is just one example of POV. Adam777 14:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user A.Garnet pushing his pov has put [citation needed] tag in cited statements. An example being the UN briefing under “Turkish Reply to a Demonstration” heading. And I paste my argument below:
In a UN Press Briefing right after the Solomou events New York Congressman Eliot Engel said: “For the first time in many years, the Turkish Government was not secular, and since it had come to power, "we've seen one provocation after another". The recent actions in Cyprus might be a symbol that the new Turkish Government was trying to provoke a war, he said[citation needed]. "The solution is the immediate demilitarization of Cyprus." As soon as the quote ends the statement in the article is cited by this :[37]
Why users deem the UN as POV and one sided since it is the only international organization that has approximately 190 member countries and does not reflect a unilateral foreign policy. The article includes quotes like “according to the UN; illegal TRNC”. A quoted reference that was deleted-edited by the same user here
The aricle has been edited substantially since its creation by users other than myself. see here. Have a look how the user that claims to “have attempted to neutralize”; changes the article here [38] into an intro that has little to do with the articles title, pushing for a political statement such as declaration of TRNC deviating from “Cypriot refugee” into articles that are already in wikipedia ie Cyprus dispute or Turkish Invasion of Cyprus.
This user is POV pushing and I quote his edits: “The attempted coup d'etat in July 1974 by EOKA-B, which advocated immediate Enosis, plus the removal or killing of all Turkish Cypriots on the island, gave the Turkish Military its cassus belli'. Unquote.
Casus belli_= an event to justify war. Turkey to this day states that in 1974 she “intervened” with a “peace operation”. The killing of all Turkish Cypriots? I challenge the user to bring forth evidence and substantiate both arguments for “casus belli” and killed all Turkish Cypriots or is it the users’ interpretation? [39] I reverted user Garnet once here [40] and explained that since the article has a disputed tag, lets talk before you change the whole article. Quote “(RV please dont change the whole article because you dont agree with it...lets talk about the changes you are eager to do) Unquote.
I see that the user made an argument that the article is covered elsewhere. I think the user wants the article deleted because he disagrees with it and not because “it is covered in other articles”. Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict ends (in terms of time) where this article begins. The1963 Background is a link (in the heading) for the referred article. This section was created after user A.Garnet and Expatkiwi insisted in adding background (stating that “Turkish Cypriots were the first refugees in Cyprus) in order to make a political statement and not to add towards the purpose of the article “Depicting the ongoing strife of Cypriot refugees and their demand to return to their homes since 1974”. The article factual accuracy has been disputed by a tag and I have since requested repeatedly for users to substantiate. I have replied with citations to the majority of the initial issues raised. Evidence in the talk page. User Garnet changed radically the article in order to push a POV against UN arguments and not arguments of “nationalism” as user Adam777 suggests. In my opinion the UN does not reflect a foreign policy in any way. And I quote [41] “The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does, however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate policies on matters affecting all of us. At the UN, all the Member States — large and small, rich and poor, with differing political views and social systems — have a voice and a vote in this process”. Unquote.

As far as the following argument made by user Adam777, I am surprised because this user never raised an argument or stressed a concern in the talk page of the article in question although I have repeatedly requested users to contribute under the POV list that I created as a heading in the talk page: Please read the passage user Adam777 refers to in his own words below: “His implication that Turkish Cypriots were living in enclaves in order to gain partition of Cyprus and not, as was the case, becuase they had reason to fear for their lives is just one example of POV”.

I have NOT in any way stated my personal opinion. The section referred to by Adam777 begins with “The Turkish Community of the Republic of Cyprus holds…” and “The Republic of Cyprus holds …” thus including the two major POV.
Evident in the talk page, I have openly asked and explained that we will collectively discuss a list of concerns that would be drafted collectively so that we can collectively reach an agreement. The only user that has done so; but attacked myself in the process (see talk page) was Garnet. I did not encounter but avoided his accusation and verbal harassment. Instead I asked other users to contribute as well. User Garnet instead of providing some time for others to contribute to the list of concerns he took the step of afd just after he assaulted myself stating that “I have no intetion to sort this” although I repeatedly asked for contributions to the list. The user that wants the article deleted has provided no evidence for his arguments has not introduced references instead went for afd.
Yes the article needs improvement and there are a lot of information that can be included but please read the article carefully with its references before making your decision. Aristovoul0s 21:34, 20 October 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 was speedily deleted as spam (CSD G11). -- Merope 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MobiStax™[edit]

Pure advertising, makes no attempt to be more, and a copyvio to boot. See http://www.forestinteractive.com.au/forest/pages/MobileContent.html for details. Emeraude 14:42, 20 October 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 was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 16:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Moore[edit]

The subject of this article does not meet the WP:BIO notability guideline --Takeel 15:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When should we expect those sources? --Takeel 12:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I find them. I'll have to do some hunting first. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: To address the "vanity" issue, I've rolled back the article to the aforementioned revision, which is the last revision before Moore began editing the article herself. I have a feeling that Moore was unaware of WP:AUTO, and so I shall fill her in on it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't the article illustrate that through a means other than linking to her own website? --Takeel 12:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs a LOT of TLC. One thing that needs to be done is to roll the article back to the point that I mentioned before to comply with WP:AUTO, to knock Moore's own contributions out of play. I'm personally hesitant to do any major work on the article at this point until I know how this AFD comes out. I don't want to put a bunch of effort into it and then the article ends up getting zapped. As for sources, I'll see what I can come up with. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moore published article which explains the references to systems theory in original article

AMAZON.COM link to Moore's book THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE [Please note that the book is referenced on many sites that list Waco books.]

Gun Owners Foundation First Reference and Second Reference to Moore's book the foundation published, i.e., THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE.

Wrtier's comments on The Davidian Massacre

Moore "Hero of the Week" Link with cool photo

Boogieonline Moore Activism Related Link

Article with Several References to Moore's Libertarian Party activism

Libertarian Party News article mentioning Carol Moore's activism

Description of Moore talk on Waco and Secession

Mention of Moore's libertarian and secession activism

Online radio interview with Moore talking about secession and war

Re-publication of Moore article on war on drugs

Mention of Moore as war tax resister at a year 2000 demonstration

Letter to IRS Moore presented during demonstration above

Mention of Moore as possible Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate for 2008

Article about a 2006 forum Moore sponsored and co-moderated


Carolmooredc (Talk)

Duly copied to article's talk page, at Talk:Carol Moore. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:22, 1 November 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 was Speedily deleted by Uncle G (Unsourced biography of a 15-year-old.) - Yomanganitalk 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Freed[edit]

This is a student's vanity page. Previous attempts at speedy-deletion[42] and prod[43] have been unsuccessful, so unfortunately this has to proceed to afd. Recommend speedy delete. --Elonka 15:07, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical chronology of Greece[edit]

Article is a synthesis of primary sources, making it original research, and it doesn't take an encyclopedic approach to the subject --Akhilleus (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator. This article was previously nominated for deletion, and the consensus at that time was keep; but most contributors thought that extensive revision was necessary to fix the article's problems. In my view, revision won't fix what's wrong here.

the article is an original synthesis of ancient chronographic sources like Jerome, Eusebius, and the Parian Marble. The article often adopts one source's date in preference to another, but gives no citations, and in fact, never indicates that these sources often disagree about the date of a particular event.

Worse, the article gives the impression that this is an authoritative timeline of Greek mythology. Someone could read this article and think that modern scholars believe that Zeus was born in 1703 BC; just recently someone referred to this article to determine Odysseus' "true" age when he reaches Ithaca. However, most experts would say that these events never actually happened, and that trying to determine their true date is silly. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:47, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleuth (Internet RPG)[edit]

Non-notable online game; fails WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 15:36, 20 October 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 was merge into screwdriver (cocktail). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow comfortable screw[edit]

Prod removed with comment that many cocktails have articles, but the prod reason given wasn't "prod -- cocktail", it was "prod -- WP:NOT a recipe book". It's a well established wikipedia precedent that mere recipes don't get articles. All of the external links are recipes as well. Leave this one in List of cocktails and Wikibooks:Bartending. Quale 15:40, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Cosa - Cine Fantástico[edit]

A Spanish-language magazine which makes a lot of claims I can't seem to verify, the main one being interviews with many directors who I don't think know Spanish. The creator of the article is also one of the editors of the magazine. My vote is a weak delete which I'll change if the claims can be verified. Danny Lilithborne 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 15:44, 20 October 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 was keep. There seems to be significant feeling that we should have an article on MMOGChart instead, but we don't yet. Mangojuicetalk 16:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Woodcock[edit]

Non-notable. His major claim to fame is a self-published website of subscription numbers for MMOGs of questionable accuracy at best. Beyond that, he's been the profile of a fluff piece in Business Week six years ago that amounted to a "Hey, companies use the Web to defend their reputations" job. Article has been heavily edited by the subject, and its other main contributor, User:Elonka, also works in the games industry. Note also the fluff piece Woodcock wrote about her company and game on his website: [45] (Scroll down to the section on Simutronics). This is an obvious vanity article. Phil Sandifer 16:55, 20 October 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 was Speedy Delete.CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOTSOUP[edit]

nn website or company. alexa 194,546 ranks. Flog agg 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11:21, 20 October 2006 Chairboy (Talk | contribs) deleted "HOTSOUP" (A7 G11)
11:19, 20 October 2006 Chairboy (Talk | contribs) deleted "HOTSOUP" (A7 G11)
11:11, 20 October 2006 Chairboy (Talk | contribs) deleted "HOTSOUP" (A veritable cornucopia of deletion reasons. G11, and A7 are most immediately applicable.)
11:07, 20 October 2006 Fang Aili (Talk | contribs) deleted "HOTSOUP" (A7/G11)
Still listed here, as the AfD was put in while ((hangon)) was in effect. Plus, it's been recreated three times, so far, by its author. AubreyEllenShomo 17:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • stricken duplicate keep opinion. Please only state keep or delete once per discussion.--Isotope23 19:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • stricken duplicate keep opinion.--Isotope23 19:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • stricken duplicate keep opinion.--Isotope23 19:14, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Tourism in Europe[edit]

WP:OR at best, advertisement at worst. Was marked for WP:PROD, but prod was reverted by an IP, that added a link to a commercial website offering - get this - Medical Tourism in Eurpoe. As prod was disputed, I now nominate this article for deletion. AubreyEllenShomo 17:04, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Anthony[edit]

Article doesn't assert notability. Most edits have been made by Elderaa, which would imply that article fails WP:AUTO. User's only other contributions have been to Ronald Anthony (AJ Anthony's father) and Sanctified Churches of Deliverance Full Gospel, Inc. (AJ Anthony's church). Caknuck 17:12, 20 October 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 was delete. No reasons for keeping were given. --Coredesat 03:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Woodcote Manhunt League (WML)[edit]

Also WP:NFT --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 17:28, 20 October 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 was Speedy deleted under CSD criteria G11 and G12. Guy 08:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctified Churches of Deliverance Full Gospel, Inc.[edit]

Non-notable church. Most edits have been made by Elderaa, appears to be AJ Anthony, the pastor of the church. User's only other contributions have been to Ronald Anthony (AJ Anthony's father) and AJ Anthony (autobiographical article). The text on the nominated page is C&P from houseofgod.org (page defunct, see Google cache), so page is a poss. candidate for a G12 speedy. Caknuck 17:21, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Anthony[edit]

Article doesn't assert notability. Most edits have been made by Elderaa, which appears to be the son of the article's subject. This would imply that article fails WP:AUTO. User's only other contributions have been to AJ Anthony (autobiographical article) and Sanctified Churches of Deliverance Full Gospel, Inc. (AJ Anthony's church). Caknuck 17:27, 20 October 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 was keep. --Coredesat 03:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah's Gift[edit]

PROD deleted by anon. IP with no reason given, so I'm nominating for deletion due to being a NN-book DesertSky85451 17:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This [46] should be enough to establish the book's notability. The publisher's website does cite some reviews (although by not so important publications) [47]. The book has been translated at least in French. I do believe it meets WP:BK.Pascal.Tesson 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Amazon (UK) holds 21 customers' reviews on this title, the two lowest rated at four-stars; As kept, no harm. Ricksy 05:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've overhauled the article completely.[48] Boy, nothing more fun than researching a book about a little girl dying of cancer... :-( EVula 05:30, 21 October 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 was delete. Mangojuicetalk 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron.[edit]

bio for NN-rapper delete DesertSky85451 17:49, 20 October 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 was merge to Bill Simmons. I'm changing it to a redirect; the theory is already mentioned, but feel free to expand the coverage based on the revision history of this page. Mangojuicetalk 16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ewing Theory[edit]

non-notable theory in that it is not published anywhere but by Simmons himself. Most Google hits are to the Simmons article on the theory and is not in any independent publications. Article should be deleted or merged into Bill Simmons article Ramsquire 17:49, 20 October 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 was delete - the argumwents to delete (reliant on policy) are better than the (reliant on bloggery) arguments to keep. Proto::type 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damaka[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username)).

Original AFD only lasted three hours and received an unsubstantial number of votes. Agreed on talk page that it was fair to give it another shot. Seems somewhat notable after all. --Czj 17:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after reviewing the references, all except one (the Indonesian newspaper) are either press releases or trivial sources such as blogs. We're down to only one non-trivial reliable source and without another one this does not meet WP:CORP. —ptk✰fgs 17:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed those references. They're all damaka Inc. press releases or trivial blogs and don't add anything but padding and marketing claims to the article. Press releases from the company are not legitimate sources of information about the company. I request that you please review WP:RS and WP:CORP before reinserting those links in the article. —ptk✰fgs 18:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were a number of articles in there from independent publications. Since when are interviews with Network World and a write-up by a staff member of CNET consider company issued marketing? There is a request for deletion of this article (I believe by you?) and while this request is being considered, you took it into your judgement to delete references which can help other editors decide on this issue? Why don't you leave these references alone while the decision is being made? I also noticed that you took the time to edit the features section of this article extensively. Have you reviewed the features section of other companies (like skype) and tried to implement the same editing criteria? I have re-added reference articles for this article so that others can decide their validity. I appreciate you leaving it there for others' review. —User:blue.einstein✰User_talk:blue.einstein
Fine whatever. This isn't worth my time anymore. You want to spam Wikipedia, go ahead. —ptk✰fgs 02:50, 23 October 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 was keep. Daniel.Bryant 06:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Zhiwei[edit]

The page fails to meet the notability criteria for academics; in addition Prof.Zhiwei recieves zero hits on Google Scholar (although, of course, this does not suffice as the primary reason for Deletion under any circumstances according to the notability criteria for academics. Anthony 17:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with Google Scholars but I am assuming it's generally for English authors. If you actually typed in "Lu Zhiwei" in Google Books as mentioned above, you will find many results. Let me just point some obvious out on Mr. Lu according to the notablity criteria:

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

I don't have the sources in my hand, but Mr. Lu was selected, and remained as the president of Yenching University for 25 years because of his expertise in psychology, linguistics and music.

2. The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.

K, for this one I'll just quote it from the English article. "He was one of the original developers of Pinyin. He was an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences." I don't understand how you came up with "fails notablity criteria".

3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work.

The Chinese Wiki listed five books. Those are just the major ones. He's made various other publishings according to the Chinese Wiki.

4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

The Chinese Government Linguistic Website. The page I gave you here included most of Mr. Lu's published book, "古音说略", "汉语构词法", "诗韵谱".

5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.

I'll requote the sentence in English Wiki. "He was one of the original developers of Pinyin". Also, according to Chinese Wiki, Mr. Lu was also one of the first to introduce Western psychology concept into China. He's made many other Chinese linguistic contributions according to a bio in the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

There are even Chinese BIOGRAPHIES on him.

After listing all of those reasons, I came to a conclusion that the fact that you can't read Chinese is no excuse. The notablity guide clearly states that if the person meets ONE criteria, he is notable. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  19:14, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of living Mumbai,India[edit]

Has been listed as unsourced since August. Article creator hasn't touched it in some time. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Catchpole 21:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larisa Trembovler[edit]

Non-notable wife of a terrorist. She is not remarkable and did not receive substantial media attention outside of her connection to Yigal Amir. KazakhPol 18:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather inclined to agree, she's published a novel with her ex-husband but how successful has it actually been? There is very little mention in Google and for all the notable novelists there are hundreds of thousands of aspiring ones many who actually subsidise the production of their work - definition of a novelist amounts to a writer of novels, anyone could write a novel but how many people actually read it is another matter - it might be better to mention her in the article about her rather more notable husband. Most of the references in Google to her other than those about her husband appear to be pages acting as a sort of mirror to the Wikipedia page on her.--Lord of the Isles 19:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yigal Amir is not remarkable and did not receive substantial media attention outside of his connection to Yitzhak Rabin. --Haham hanuka 20:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially what you are saying is Trembovler is notable because of her connection to someone who is notable because of his connection to someone who is notable... perhaps we should add an article on anyone else who has interacted with Trembovler, provided they write a book. KazakhPol 20:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her husband is notable because he assassinated a major leader of a nation state, it is quite probable that Yitzak Rabin would have won the subsequent Israeli Prime Ministerial election so he possibly had an effect on the course of Israeli history like it or not.--Lord of the Isles 20:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AFD for Trembovler, not her husband. KazakhPol 21:15, 20 October 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 was keep. Proto::type 11:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Point Directory[edit]

Procedural AFD discussion per speedy contest. --Czj 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis for the nomination? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't find any evidence for this history via Google. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned below, the ephemeral nature of the web makes it difficult to search for decade-old evidence. However, a search for "Starting Point Choice" (an award that was similar to the Lycos Top 5% program) does still bring up several hundred sites. - EurekaLott 01:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the original author, but a citation was provided in an attempt to support the historical claims within the article [51]. I removed it, however, since it is not a reliable source (site owner's own blog post). We'll need to verify the claims in the article for it to stay. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"tenth most-linked website" http://web.archive.org/web/19981203120048/www.stpt.com/mediakit/press.html http://web.archive.org/web/19981207030221/www.stpt.com/mediakit/quotes.html --VariableX 17:20, 21 October 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 was delete. Mangojuicetalk 16:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamora.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Alexa traffic rank 1,162,388. Húsönd 18:34, 20 October 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 was Speedy delete as nn-group. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ekklesia (UK think tank)[edit]

Think tank article created by one of its founders. Article does not assert why this think tank is notable. Attempt was made at prod, but prod tag removed by article creator. StuffOfInterest 18:35, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Monkey Circus[edit]

non-notable Phileas 18:35, 20 October 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 was Speedy Keep per below and User:Harthacanute3 now indefblocked as a Courtney Akins/UCF Cheerleader sockpuppet. Gwernol 16:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Thomas Tollemache[edit]

A mere non-entity, waste of article spaceHarthacanute3 18:36, 20 October 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 was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Necromancer Games[edit]

Procedural nomination. The article was originally tagged with PROD by cryogenesis (talk · contribs) with the rationale "Not-notable per WP:CORP". I have reason to believe that this tag was put up in bad faith since that same user has recently removed the prod tags on articles Spellbinder Games (USA) and Apotheosis Publishing and voted to keep both on the resulting AfDs and has indicated his feeling that he is being unfairly targeted. I have therefore removed the PROD tag and placed this AfD instead. Pascal.Tesson 18:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: that's something that should be fixed by editing, not by deletion. Cheers --Pak21 12:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also interesting that you vehemently supported keeping on the AfD for a single new d20 book, Dreadmire. Very much looks like sour grapes, I'm afraid. Necromancer Games is very much better known in the roleplaying world than Spellbinder Games. -- Necrothesp 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as further evidence of Bad Faith nom, see nominator's comment on the AfD for Spellbinder Games. He compares Necromancer Games to Spellbinder games, claiming Necromancer has only published four books. This is simply inaccurate as a quick trip to their catalogue page shows that they have published 37 books.--Rosicrucian 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you actually read the article you are voting to delete? The article itself notes the only products put out by Necromancer Games itself. The other books were actually developed by other companies and then later released (under license) by Necromancer Games. Not the same thing as publishing your own books. "Necromancer Games has only published four books" is a true statement.--Cryogenesis 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is absolutely NOT a true statement. Most of their products were developed by themselves, and a not insignificant number were actually written by the company's founders. Though, as you yourself said, it is a moot point.--RobNoxious 01:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is on a game studio imprint. All of these products have received the Necromancer Games imprint. Even if you trim it down to only original products offered by Necromancer Games, the total is still significantly more than "four books."--Rosicrucian 16:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its a moot issue anyway. WP:CORP is pretty clear: having a product (or products) does not make a company notable.--Cryogenesis 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated below, the company has received muliple industry awards.--Rosicrucian 16:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trivial awards. They may be important to you, but not to Wikipeida. The awards go all the way back to... 2002. "Egads, its like they've been around forever."--Cryogenesis 15:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You speak for Wikipedia now? The ENnies predate this website by a year, and I do not find Wikipedia "trivial." Please see my comment below. In the industry under discussion, the ENnies are absolutely not "Trivial." How long the Award has been presented is inconsequential.--RobNoxious 23:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No offense to the ENnies, but they are indeed a trivial award. A Pulitzer is a non-trivial award. A little perspective, please.--Cryogenesis 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Pulitzer is non-trivial in journalism. The ENnies are a significant award in the gaming industry. A little perspective, please.--Rosicrucian 17:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FYI for those that don't know, the "EN World" website was originally created as a message board to support a community project to design a campaign world for 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons. The "ENnies" started in 2002, hardly enough time to become "significant". They are currently the equivalent of a bowling trophy, albeit in the gaming community. I am sure they are very important to some people, just like a bowling trophy. Again, no offense to the people at the EN World website, who I am sure are good people that work very hard.--Cryogenesis 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia was founded June 20th, 2003, are you saying that because The Ennies started in 2002, merely one year before the site you are fighting to keep something off of, it is somehow insignificant? "A little perspective, please," indeed. The Comic Book industry has the Eisners, Motion Pictures; The Oscars, Journalism; The Pulitzer, the Gaming Industry has The Ennies. It is not the equivilent of a Bowling Trophy, it is the equivilent of winning a championship in the Professional Bowling Association. There is absolutely no more prestigious and recognized award in d20 gaming. (Which itself was established in 1999-2000, at the earliest.) I defy you to name another that comes close in this industry.--RobNoxious 02:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Monte Cook, who is by far bigger fry in the RPG industry than almost anyone outside WotC, seems quite pleased to have won three of these "bowling trophies". Cheers --Pak21 09:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This isn't really making anything different, but the ENnies started in 2001, not in 2002. -- Saturnin55 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Necromancer Games article was created in response to the creation of the Spellbinder Games article, a company that was at odds with Necromancer Games over the hiring of their author, Randy Richards. Necromancer Games has trivial accomplishments in the area of "Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition d20 game books" (can you get more esoteric than that???). Every D&D book publisher that has been publishing such books for 5 years has such accomplishments, and Necromancer Games may have more than most trivial publishers. But to suggest that the company has some "lasting historical value" is absurd in the extreme. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, unless its an encyclopedia on the history of games, wherein I am sure they would get a footnote. I suggest you read this: WP:CORP--Cryogenesis 15:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would suggest you read the WP:CORP, actually, as you don't seem to really grasp it. Particularly this part:
"A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:
  1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.
  • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations2 except for the following:
  • Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.
  • Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories."
(emphasis mine)
Length of operation is not addressed, nor is the signifigance of the industry in which the Company operates. (By this last argument you imply that any third party publisher of Dungeons and Dragons which was founded after the writing of the Open Game Licence is insignificant. The rules do not back you up.)
Necromancer Games has been featured, mentioned and credited in Source books published by other companies, specifically meeting the criteria listed above. I can think of NO other company from which Wizards of the Coast has printed Open Content, as they did in Monster Manual II. Goodman Games has also featured their work in at least one, if not more, of their "Dungeon Crawl Classics" module Series. Further, they have, as I mentioned before, been featured in the trade magazines Dragon and Polyhedron/Dungeon, not simply in press releases or "trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories," but in articles covering, among other things, their nominations for various ENnie Awards, their use of the Open Game Licence, their Licencing and release of Judges Guild Products, their work with Gary Gygax etc., etc.
This Encyclopedia has now expanded to include publishers of the 3.0 and 3.5 Edition Dungeons and Dragons Game. It is only right that Necromancer games be one of the first to have an article, as they were one of the first to start publishing. Work is being done to expand the Article itself by fans, as there is much that is missing that may be of interest to people who play this game. Frankly, had you not made such strenuous objections to the article, I doubt it would have caught the attention it has now recieved, that will now, likely, transform it into a thorough and interesting page. So, thank you for that.--RobNoxious 22:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly all recent comments have been from editors with contribution histories stretching back months or even years. You've been warned to be civil and assume good faith before.--Rosicrucian 15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go ahead and address this, for transparancy's sake, though normally I would just ignore it: It is true that I registered this account immediately prior to entering this discussion, however, it is the only Wikipedia account I have ever registered. While I use Wikipedia on a regular basis, I have, up 'til now, not found the need to edit anything. You might say I've been "Lurking" to this point. My screenname is the one I use across multiple boards and websites, my identity can, really, be easily established. The Web is a big place, but shyness is not something from which I suffer. I made it a point before posting in this debate to read and examine the protocol surrounding such things, and I have attempted to stay within those boundries. I also made it a point to read the "Opposing Side's" arguments and concerns, and the Rules he wished to invoke. They seemed, in this case, pretty clear, so I felt confident in advancing my argument. (I used quotes above as, though we disagree on this matter, it seems counter-productive to make an "enemy" of anyone. I would like to keep animosity to a minimum. I didn't start posting here to find foes.) I will make it a point to post links to other places I have surfaced on the web in my profile. A quick I.P. check should provide reasonable verification that I am not an Alternate I.D. (If my long-windedness is not enough.) Now, here are some other things that I am Not: I am NOT employed by Necromancer Games, I am NOT a professional writer of any sort and I am NOT using a new I.D. to escape accountability for my words and edits. I think I may have seen The Meat Puppets play live in the 80's, but I'm not in the band, if you can dig that. I AM a fan of Necromancer Games and their products. I AM an active member of their message boards. I HAVE exchanged e-mails with the company's owners, though not regarding anything to do with Wikipedia, in fact I don't think they are even paying attention to this debate. I AM a newbie here, though not to the internet at large. However, as the Wiki ettiquette page itself says, "We were all new once." If my easily verifiable arguments are discounted due to my "Newness," it bodes ill for Wikipedia at large. (Though grains of salt are, of course, expected. Go ahead and verify my claims about the publisher. And myself. Please.) With that, I look forward to a long association with this excellent website. Thank you. --RobNoxious 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allegations of meatpuppets were thrown around heavily in the AFD for Dreadmire. However, at this point I don't think they apply, and people would do well to not bite the newbies.--Rosicrucian 23:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I will endeavor to Be Bold. (Is it cheesy in here, or is it just me? <Grin>)--RobNoxious 23:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really know how to edit that stuff to post my thoughts on Wiki, or if I am even allowed to put in my comments.


But if I am, could someone post this on my behalf.

"My name is Clark Peterson. I am the president and founder of Necromancer Games, Inc. I was thrilled to see a Wiki entry for Necro (as we are called). I was equally disheartened to see a disgruntled prior writer who we terminated our relationship with for clear copyright violations and a stated intent to continue such copyright violations nominate the entry for deletion. I, frankly, don't know whether or not Necromancer Games is relevant enough for an entry. That is not up to me. That is up to you. I respect your decision. But there is a good deal of misinformation posted here that I would like to clear up so that the powers that be can make an informed decision.

First, to understand the relevance of Necro, you have to understand roleplaying and open gaming. Dungeons and Dragons is the leading roleplaying game of all time. It was created years ago by Gary Gygax, among others, and published by TSR hobbies. For years, TSR was incredibly strict with their license of D&D. In fact, TSR very notoriously sued several other companies who tried to make compatible products to D&D. For years, no third parties were allowed to make D&D compatible products. That all changed in 1997 when TSR sold the D&D brand to Wizards of the Coast ("WotC") who then developed the Third Edition of the D&D rules released in 2000. The brand manager of D&D, Ryan Dancey, made a very bold move. He convinced the powers at WotC to open the D&D rules up and to create "open gaming," creating an open game content license similar to the various software open licenses. This was a HUGE move in the RPG industry. Because of the name of the open license (which also included a logo called the "d20 logo") companies created using the open game license came to be known as "d20 companies."

This is where Necro and I come in. I was one of the early contributors to the creation of the d20 license. I worked with others in the formative stages of the license to get it in a form publishers would work with. In fact, the draft version of the license--which many publishers worked under for some time until the license was finalized--was written by Ryan Dancey directly to me. As a result, I created Necromancer Games. Necromancer Games was one of the first companies to be created to take advantage of this revolutionary idea known as open gaming. In fact, Necromancer Games has the distinction of being the very first company to release any open gaming content under the license--namely, an adventure called the Wizard's Amulet. So, if open gaming is relevant, it cant get any more relevant than Necromancer Games. But there is more.

Necromancer Games, despite comments above, has released approximately 40 products, many being hardback books. We are not just an imprint. The vast majority of our products are written in house. Even materials that we "update" for the new open gaming rules involve extensive rules creation and additional writing by us. Our products have featured writing by none other than Gary Gygax, the creator of D&D and Rob Kuntz, one of the original founders of D&D. Necromancer Games has the distinction of being probably the biggest supporter of open gaming, releasing the Tome of Horrors, a book that not only is all open content, but includes instruction on how to use the content--a first in open gaming.

We have also recieved unmatched industry praise. I personally, and Necromancer Games specificially, was selected as an "expert" by Dungeon Magazine--one of two official monthly magazines specifically for Dungeons and Dragons--to judge the best adventures of all time for D&D. Our opinions were published in Dungeon Magazine Issue 116. The bio ascribed to me and Necro reads (written by Dungeon Mag, not by me): "Clark Peterson, an attorney by trade, Clark doubles as the president of Necromancer Games, perhaps the most prolific adventure publisher in the d20 industry. Necromancer's products boast a 'First Edition feel' that hearkens back to the quality of many of the classic adventures listed in the panel's top 30. Peterson's professional credits (all through Necromancer) include Rappan Athuk: The Dungeon of Graves, The Crucible of Freya and The Player's Guide to the Wilderlands."

In addition, as mentioned by others, we have recieved numerous industry awards. Much comment has been made that the ENNie awards are relatively recent. That is true. The reason, however, is that open gaming is a very new and revolutionary idea. These awards couldnt have existed previously because open gaming and the d20 logo didnt exist previously. Necromancer Games is one of only two companies to be nominated every year the awards have been in existence for consideration as the Best Overall Publisher. We have won numerous industry awards.

I recognize that d20 publishers are indeed a small niche in the world and perhaps that niche industry is too small for a Wiki entry. If that is the case, then that is the case. I have no quarrel with that. However, in my view, Open Gaming is a significant revolution in roleplaying and if any company in d20 is relevant, it is Necromancer Games. As demonstrated above, the industry clearly agrees.

I hope this helps clear up any misconceptions about Necromancer Games, our role in d20, the industry and the status of our publications."

Clark

posted by--RobNoxious 10:52, 25 October 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 was keep. Long-time Parliamentarian, and nominating everyone named Manners doesn't get anyone anywhere. Punkmorten 19:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Charles Manners[edit]

Non even a politican or elected representative. Not notable and not suitable for an article based only on his connexions to the peerage, which is the only even remotely interesting thing about this article. Delete!! Harthacanute3 18:39, 20 October 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 was delete all (nothing to merge). Proto::type 11:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaju[edit]

also Lincoln (Artcell), Cezanne (Artcell), and Ershad, (Singer)

No notability— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs)

Strong Delete. A drummer from a fairly inexperienced Bangladesh rock band, with limited fan following in Bangladesh, and almost no impact outside? Notability very poor. We can't clutter WP with all the musicians in the world who have managed come out with one album. WP is not a fansite. - Aditya Kabir 19:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I just bundled them all here as they all meet or don't meet WP:MUSIC for the same reasons.--Isotope23 19:39, 20 October 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 was keep. Daniel.Bryant 06:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of towers[edit]

This article is too long, not at all focussed, lacks a clear definition of tower. Within the haphazard definition it provides the listed towers are highly biased both in type as in geographic location (it is mainly about central European television masts and chimneys).
Even worse, any effort to ask editors to clean it up has had no results whatsoever. a clean up tag has been up since december 2005; I myself made many effort on the discussion page to suggest cleaning up. However by biased unsourced additions the article is currently in much worse state than 10 months ago when the clean up tag was first added.
Thus the quality and effort of editors is such, that removing this article is in my opinion better than leaving it up with the current quality (I have done everything I can to try to start a serious effort for imporvement and do not believe that will ever work withing starting with a clean slate). Arnoutf 19:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "List of" articles are generally like this. They require your actual assistence unless it's a irrelevant topic. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  19:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AQu01rius, please refrain from using such harshness against other users. There's really no need for that.--Húsönd 20:17, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bromance[edit]

Speedy deleted, then recreated with the reasoning "added reference section and a reference, and tagged as stub". Well, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Punkmorten 19:22, 20 October 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 was delete (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaju above). Proto::type 11:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cezanne (Artcell)[edit]

A bassist from a fairly inexperienced Bangladesh rock band, with limited fan following in Bangladesh, and almost no impact outside? Notability very poor. We can't clutter WP with all the musicians in the world who have managed come out with one album. WP is not a fansite.

Add Shaju, Lincoln (Artcell), and Ershad, (Singer) - other members of the band Artcell. - Aditya Kabir 19:39, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integration of church and culture in China[edit]

Violates WP:OR, is persuasive instead of encyclopedic SkerHawx 19:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought the same, so I searched a couple of places, and did a few text searches within Google, Google Scholar, and Amazon and didn't come up with outright copyright. Otherwise I would've speedied... Thx. SkerHawx 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the original author with the authority to release rights posted it on Wikipedia, that posting is equivalent to releasing it under the GFDL. (=not a copyvio) Mak (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while this is true, we can't determine this solely from a username. They'd have to provide proof that they wrote the article in question. ColourBurst 15:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of whether it's a copyvio, it's certainly a persuasive piece of OR. SkerHawx 17:34, 21 October 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 was delete (nothing to merge, not a likely string to keep as a redirect). Proto::type 11:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave and Sheri Moorman[edit]

Article about two people, neither of which satisfies WP:BIO. Article contains precious little claim to notability, but speedy was contested anyway. Valrith 20:18, 20 October 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 was keep. Proto::type 11:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GamesBids[edit]

Contested prod. Advertorial in tone, but not an obvious one. It seems to me that this is probably a reasonably relaible source, but unlikely to be a notable website in itself. The business of rating Olympic bids is, after all, a bit esoteric. Perhaps a small section in Olympic bid? I don't know. Anyway, the site itself doesn't appear to even exist on Alexa, and although it scores moderately on Google most of the top hits are blogs or the site itself (and cafepress merchandising, spit, spit). My benchmark is always that the subject has been the prinicpal focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject; I don't see any such evidence here. Guy 20:44, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slitheryn[edit]

Non notable band. Only claim to fame seems to be a very loose tie to Corey Taylor of Slipknot Wildnox 21:00, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GERTH![edit]

This is an article about a band. According to the article, the band was formed in 2003, but has released two albums, and toured both the US and Europe. That is an assertion of notability, so it cannot be speedied under A7, therefore I changed the speedy template to a prod. The prod was deleted, so I'm sending this to AFD. What concerns me personally more than any percieved lack of notability is that no sources are cited at all. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, I don't believe the REALITY satisfies WP:BAND. --Wildnox 23:56, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3D artists[edit]

Hardly anybody on this list has their own article, nor will they ever have their own articles. Wikipedia articles are NOT for lists of external links. List is unmaintainable. --- RockMFR 21:14, 20 October 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 was delete. Proto::type 11:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoriyos[edit]

Was speedied twice with no notability claims; author has recreated again, and added a link to a review and a link to a radio show playlist. I don't think either satisfies WP:MUSIC; the [ BBC link is a trivial mention (a brief mention on a playlist); regarding the "review," I did a Google search for a snippet of the text from the review and found it on three different sites; none is a review site that I'd heard of before (none of the "reviews" have anything negative to say whatsoever). I'm pretty sure that the "reviews" on the site are just promos/press releases submitted by the subject or the subjects rep. The name of the article's creator is also the name of the subject's own record label; it all adds up to self-promotion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What satisfies you Ohnoitsjamie? The review is real. and the plays on the BBC and Seans endorsement (if you listened to the show) seems sufficient to me. Even if it is deleted now it will be put up again by Polydor as they are distributing it, as they did with James Morrison 2 months before they released his debut album. i dont think your satisfaction is what needs to be satisfied here. So long as i stick to the criteria it should stay up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rarechords (talk • contribs) .
Comment WP:MUSIC-defined notability would satisfy me. Unlike MySpace, Wikipedia is not a tool for promoting an up-and-coming artist; musicians must already be notable to merit inclusion. You are correct that "my satisfaction" is not the sole critiera; that's why I listed it here for others to comment on. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).
Well the site with the review on it seems reputable to me, try reading other reviews of theirs and you'll see it's not just some silly site. and the bbc link is reputable. I do agree with you that this site is not a tool for promoting, it is not my intention to do that. And regarding the snippet being on three different sites, please post the links as i tried to do this and have only come up with the Female First review. comment was added by Rarechords
Comment The link to the Google search is in my nomination. I looked through some of the reviews on that site. I'm not convinced that their independent reviews; the read like promos. I did a Google search from a sentence from one of the DVD reviews and came up with numerous hits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Female First, Teen First and Male First are obviously one and the same. They aren't three three different review sites with the same review. That's not a fair point. And furthermore, if you aren't UK based, i dont feel you can fairly assess this issue, as there have been gigs and prints in magazines here, he's not an out of the blue artist. Also there is a band called Oswald (UK Band) that has a page up, they dont have a record out or any links apart from their site. comment was added by Rarechords
2. Sean Rowley is itself unsourced, but he does seem to have a regular show, which could make this one noteworthy and reliable media source, if your song's on rotation, or if Mr. Rowley has commented on it, its artist, or its album. The show is called "Guilty Pleasures," and apparently "celebrates music that is slightly shameful to love," so I'm not sure this is a ringing endorsement, but still, a source.
3. It's probably not a good idea to use another article as precedent. Especially an article you think doesn't meet the standards. Thank you for pointing it out, though; I'll do some research and possibly nominate that article later tonight.
4. You're not being picked on. Wikipedia deletes a lot of articles about non-noteworthy bands. However, nobody's disputing that the album is listed for release; this does not make the artist noteworthy. Nobody's disputing that it's been played on the radio at least once; this does not make the artist noteworthy. This is a brand-new artist with no albums out (yet); this tends to make the artist non-noteworthy. Not necessarily -- if his single has swept the nation and he's debuted high on the charts, he would warrant an article. But so far I've seen no indication that this individual belongs in an encyclopedia. He has no established career, and, based on the article's claims, there's nothing unusual or notable about his music. If there is something that makes this young artist especially noteworthy, then it should be in his article, and it should be sourced. If not, he should wait until his career's more firmly established, such that someone else, not directly associated with him or his label, begins an article about him. Shimeru 19:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[55] comment was added by Rarechords

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Cutting[edit]

Appears to fail WP:BIO. No evidence that he has been the primary subject of multiple (or indeed any) independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. This appears to be an end-run around the current deletion review of speedy-deleted Fortuna Saga. Guy 22:48, 20 October 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 was Delete. Does not assert notability. Aksi_great (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Score[edit]

Recreated PROD about a webtoon that fails WP:WEB. Sister article Bonus Stage was also prod-deleted, recreated, speedied and is now in DRV. Closure required. Deizio talk 22:47, 20 October 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 was keep. Mangojuicetalk 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Troubles in Moneymore[edit]

This articles only contents are a list of incidents in Moneymore which resulted in two or more fatalities, in that list there is only one item (with two fatalities). The article on Moneymore has a section on the troubles which is just a link to this page and a description of what is on it "For more information see The Troubles in Moneymore, which includes a list of incidents in Moneymore during the Troubles resulting in two or more fatalities." I see no reason to keep this article, the little information can be easily merged into the Moneymore article. A look at the reference shows there were several incidents in or near Moneymore where one person was killed, so there is scope to expand this article. I think deleting and a couple of sentences on the Moneymore article is the best course of action. Sam Hayes 22:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ardfern, I see your point but as it is I don't think that the article is good enough to remain. I'll change my view to keep if this article is significantly expanded. Another problem is this article is that it's a dead end article, the only thing that links to it is the Moneymore article, which is why its seems so stupid. I understand the reasoning behind removing this information from the town pages, but the creation of all these stubby, dead end articles doesn't seem to be a better solution. If these articles just give the information given in CAIN then what is the point of them?
A decision needs to be made on these article by article, in this case, I think that a sentence in the Troubles section of Moneymore should be added reading something like "Between year x and year y, z people died in and near Moneymore as a result of the Troubles." with a link to the relevant CAIN page if people want more info.
If the Troubles in Moneymore article had all the informamation from all the deaths, plus a bit more, stuff from local newspapers of the time etc, what effect it had on the town, whether those killed were of any importance to the town, anything to stop this article just providing a list, to differentiate it from CAIN then I would support its existence. Sam Hayes 21:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given time the article will be expanded by me and by others (as is the Wiki way). I am concerned that the stub concept is being eroded by the endless push to see immediate fully finalised articles - but I see no help from anyone here in adding more information - just criticism that the article isn't full enough (that is not the Wiki way). CAIN does not provide info by town, hence the value of this article in its connection to the village. I am continuing research on the troubles by town subject and will be developing the articles (hopefully with input from others). For heaven's sake give the stub time to grow. Ardfern 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Well a search on CAIN gives all the relevant incidents, even if it doesn't list incidents by town. The extra information you added about the incident is good, makes the article infinitely better. I know stubs should be developed, but the proposal of delete wouldn't stop this, as the information would still be contained in the Moneymore article. If expanding the article just means adding CAIN info, then I can do it but as I said before, better information is needed, or its just a replication and adds no value to Wikipedia. Anyway, you've improved this article, so I will change my view to keep, and endevour to expand this article and help you with other articles in this category. Sam Hayes 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sam, many thanks for helping to improve the article and for any help with improving others. Adding the CAIN info for all deaths by town/village is a first step, I will then be using other resources to flesh out the incidents and also to give them more local context. Thus thru Wiki co-operation we will have better, fuller articles - excellent job. Ardfern 18:12, 23 October 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 was Delete. Aksi_great (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Armed Forces Network[edit]

Non-notable plot device from a single video game. Prod tag removed by only contributor. Maxamegalon2000 23:04, 20 October 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 was keep. Daniel.Bryant 06:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty[edit]

Notability not established in article. Borderline speedy deletion candidate. The two sources given aren't actually sources but instead 2 seperate news articles on the organization's 70th anniversary luncheon. Those articles also don't really focus on the organization, but rather, the keynote speaker. I don't see notability established through reliable, non-trivial sources here. Metros232 23:17, 20 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Powell[edit]

I know the author of this article. He told me he falsified it for fun and to prove wikipedia was inaccurate. If you do a little research, you will find it impossible to connect the name "Brooks Powell" to the Tennessee 35th. Jickler 23:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also related afd" Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colonel_Benjamin_Donovan
as well as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sergeant Ivan Ilyich Dostovich
These articles were all created by User:Princetonhistorian
Bwithh 00:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Jickler for being a helpful and benign Single Purpose Account user, btw. Bwithh 00:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the Donovan afd for an article which should be very easy to verify but gets zero hits. Bwithh 00:36, 21 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Benjamin Donovan[edit]

(also nominating redirect Colonel Benjamin Donavan)

Nomination for Deletion Probable hoax by User:Princetonhistorian who allegedly created articles in attempting to show that Wikipedia is unreliable. Military Cross winners are officially announced in the London Gazette. No hits for this name in the Gazette archive[59]. No hits in Factiva database (i.e. no mention in the The Times records of honours.)

See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brooks_Powell - an afd concerning probable hoax by same user. Here's another one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sergeant Ivan Ilyich Dostovich Bwithh 00:24, 21 October 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Ivan Ilyich Dostovich[edit]

Nomination for deletion Probable hoax by suspected malicious hoaxer User:Princetonhistorian. Can't find any references. Hoaxers like this need to be stamped out quickly and dealt with harshly.

See also related afds for articles by suspected hoaxer: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brooks_Powell

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colonel_Benjamin_Donovan

Bwithh 00:32, 21 October 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 was Delete as already transwikied - per the refutations to the keep advocates, this is not an abuse of the AfD system.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of sexual slurs[edit]

Delete per discussion in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Lists_of_words. There is no encyclopedic value in the article, only dictionary value. The article is already transwikified in wiktionary. By the way, the term "glossary" is misleading. I undesrtand "Glossary of golf", glossary of graph theory, i.e., a lgossary for a certain sicispline, but "glossary of words used to denote coitus" is a word trick to make the title look good. Mukadderat 00:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems an entirely specious AfD listing, and harmful to Wikipedia, at that. This is another example of the arrogance and inanity that has driven me away from being a regular contributor to Wikipedia. Noisy | Talk 12:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you better contribute rather than fight. As I see, of your last 500 edits 95% are reversals and deletions. Either you are a warrior, then do what you are doing and don't whine. If you are not, just relax and write some good texts for a change sometimes, e.g, by Mondays. `'mikkanarxi 03:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, who cares what it is, this site is for getting info, and who cares what form it is.

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