The result was speedily deleted by User:Husond per CSD A1. --ais523 08:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Reason: No encyclopedic content Andreas (T) 13:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep.
Bad article and indians suk --Brokendownhondaaccord 01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Megatokyo. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the issue on if it should be deleted has been brought up before, and can be seen in the article's talk page. Despite the fact that most people felt that the article should be merged into Megatokyo, the article is still on its own. Personally, I don't even think it deserves to be merged, as it's a pretty stupid basis for a "meme" in my opinion (and I love Kanon). We don't need articles like Hot girls with guns. The article is pretty much a bunch of original research, as there's no real use of the term outside of the webcomic community. It's not like its an actual named, Japanese asthetic like wabi-sabi. SeizureDog 10:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Does not meet notability requirements in WP:ORG -- Craigtalbert 00:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn person; first Google ref is WP; nothing about him in news or reference sources; only ref is apparently a personal blog; the page is very vague on details that would give any prominence to the subject patsw 00:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list of redlinks, each of which is a non-notable piece of software. This subject is already covered in PlayStation Portable homebrew, but none of these emulators have any sort of individual notability. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Daniel Bryant 10:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything here - nothing but unreleased demos, etc - seems to suggest this fails the WP:MUSIC guidelines, and I can't find any sources to refute it. Crystallina 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information presented here about lengths of reigns of Popes is redundant; it is already completely contained in the main article Pope. While it is true that this page contains unique content, that content is specific to Peter and much of it is also irrelevant to the subject of length of reign. It should therefore be transferred to the main article Pope, or possibly Saint Peter. Robin S 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to those who have suggested merging, I would like to remind you that the information is already contained here in exactly the same form, so a "merge" would in fact amount to out-and-out deletion. Personally, I am in favour of a sortable table in List of popes, as Dr bab suggested (I was not previously aware that this was possible). Robin S 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of U.S. states by date of statehood, List of U.S. states by area, List of U.S. states by elevation, List of U.S. states by GDP (nominal), List of U.S. states by GDP per capita (nominal), List of U.S. states by population, List of U.S. states by population density, List of U.S. states by time zone, and List of U.S. states by unemployment rate I will give deference to some people wanting to look at the list of popes so arranged. Carlossuarez46 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look I am sorry but this School is not notable, plain and simple. Just because it is a school does not make it notable. A google search for this School, gets a low return. What is returned is a list of multiple different schools by this name. Yes, it is a school, unfortunately this does not make it notable. I informed people on both sides of the last AFD. Colleges have been deleted off of Wikipedia for lack of notability. Simply put this school does not need an article. So I say:
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people) guidelines for entertainers. 2) NPOV/Subjective 3) Seems to be written by subject or associate / Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest / Wikipedia:Autobiography 4) Some links mismatch (e.g., name of link is linked to seemingly unrelated article to avoid red linking?) Delete Touchdown Turnaround 01:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another incoherent article created by Stevenson-Perez (talk · contribs). Other users have improved the article somewhat, but I still don't see its value for Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Community of Practice Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific value Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaning (scientific) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stevenson-Perez (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a mass nomination. I've discovered while reading Series finale that the article Notable series finales (1990s) has been deleted through this AfD back in January. But it's obvious that the article was just part of a series, and it doesn't make much sense to delete the one and keep the others (or vice versa), and so I had the choice to either go to deletion review with the the deleted article, or nominate the other articles for deletion. I chose to do the latter, because right now those articles don't cover notable series finales, they simply cover all series finales from that time. I think we should merge these articles into one article, List of notable series finales, that only cover the notable series finales, and not all of them. Now we're going to have a lot of fun while discussing which series finale is notable and which isn't, but I think that it's possible to create a few criteria for inclusion (For example: having multiple emmy nominations (Everyone's Waiting), or being praised/noted by well known critics (All Good Things..., I'm sure some sources can be found). --Conti|✉ 01:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, renaming or merging is at editors' discretion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No referenced material in this article. Human rights in Iraq is a better idea. DavidYork71 07:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge: With Human rights in Iraq until sufficient information can be found that a separate article would be needed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete without prejudice to recreation As it stands, this is a pathetic POV stub. Any article that discusses human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq without mentioning the Simele massacre, for instance, is seriously under-researched. Somebody who actually knows something about the history of Iraq should rewrite this in a user sandbox then recreate the article when it's comprehensive. Until that ever happens, delete. --Folantin 08:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RaveenS 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of sources, neither of which is primarily about this student newspaper. A lot of original research. Copious vanity namechecks. And that is about it. Guy (Help!) 01:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this page serves no useful purpose except for people to boost their egos and others to criticise a perfectly good student newspaper.
The result was speedy deleted by ChrisGriswold[8]. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article on non-notable company; earlier prod removed by article's creator UnitedStatesian 02:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV Fork based on one-sided rendition of events that are overripe with propaganda from multiple biased sources. Cberlet 02:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article deals with the persecution on both sides of the conflict, and it happens that the most flagrant was on the losing side of the conflict.
The article is still under construction and so I am wondering if the deletionists haven't jumped the gun here. Out of fairness and scholarship, shouldn't the article be finished?
Finally, truth is the truth. This presecution is probably the major reason why the Republic lost the war. The atrocities were so broadcast around the civilized world, and caused such an abhorrent reaction, that ONE country, Mexico, rallied to the Republic at the time of the rising.
I realized that the article may offend the political sensibilities of many, but often the truth hurts.
Here is the removal notice that was done without notice to me or by posting.
(cur) (last) 17:10, 11 February 2007 Onofre Bouvila (Talk | contribs) (I removed the section "Anti Relgious Atrocities in Republican Spain". It was approached in a very biased way, mentioning random examples, and this subject is already treated in the article.)
That was why I expanded the article and created its own area.
GenghisTheHun 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]
Hugh Purcell, The Spanish Civil War speaking of Hugh Thomas's work, p. 122 "This is generally considered the fairest and most comprehensive history of the Spanish Civil War, in English."
GenghisTheHun 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghistTheHun[reply]
I feel that the deletionist attack Thomas for being biased against the Republic. If that is so, why was his work banned in Franco Spain until Franco died?
I would also cite Sheelagh Elwood in the Historical Association Studies book, The Spanish Civil War. On p. 122 we find this comment about Thomas's book, "[Names author and work]is packed with detailed information, but its density and lenght may be a daunting project fir relative newcomers to the subject." The author continues about the Spanish edition. Thomas' book, published in 1961, has gone through revisions in 1965, 1977, 1986, and 2001. Lord Thomas is now probably in his eighties and perhaps we have seen the last of his revisions. That is a terrible loss to the historical community especially now with the work being done in the Soviet Archives. His expert eye on the Spanish material found there would be beneficial to all concerned.
To delete this article based on the assertion that Hugh Thomas is biased is akin to book burning, internet style. It is quite obvious that those who attack Lord Thomas, have not read the book.
GenghisTheHun 22:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]
I inadvertely removed this Keep Comment from another editor
I inadvertly removed this keep comment. I copied it and inserted here. My apologies.
- *Keep - all material seems properly sourced, and if some editors have POV concerns that is not the reason to delete the article but to expand it. -- Vision Thing -- 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GenghisTheHun 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]
I refer the deletionists to Don Lawson, The Abraham Lincoln Brigade, Americans Fighting Fascism in the Spanish Civil War, (1989) where he states about Lord Thomas, p. 146. "Every writer, including this one, who has written anything on the Spanish Civil War, is indebted to historian Hugh Thomas. His The Spanish Civil War, [publisher omitted} was first published in 1961 and was throughly revised and updated in 1977. It is unquestionably the definitive book on the war and so far as I have been able to determine, misses no important wartime fact or detail, large or small. But I would hesitate to recommend the Thomas book to a young reader, except an extremely advanced one, because it is so highly detailed."
I recognize that a person who is not familiar with the subject would find Thomas a large undertaking.
GenghisTheHun 22:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]
A new and exciting work that I am just finishing reading is Gerald Howson, Arms for Spain, The Untold Story of the Spanish Civil War (1998). On page 249, Howson notes Hugh Thomas' work as "great." Howson's work, by the way, is quite revolutionary. He has used the recent access to Polish and Soviet archives in his book and reviewed actual inventories and lists of the ships that carried arms to the Republic and also was able to get copies of some of the actual arms purchases. I will need to update my "Foreign Intervention" article with the new information.
GenghisTheHun 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]
As all the learned experts on the history of the Spanish Civil War know, Herbert Mathews of the New York Times covered the war from the Republican side during the entire period of 1936-1939. An interesting anecdote, that Mathews does not cite in his book, is that Mathews and Ernest Hemingway went in with the troops when the Republic captured Teruel in 1937-38. This intrepid pair actually were at the fall of the governor's headquarters where the troops fought each other from different levels of the building firing at each other through holes in the floor.
In any event, Mathews in his work, Half of Spain Died, A Reappraisal of the Spanish Civil War (1973), states on page 104, "The judgment of the British scholar, Hugh Thomas, whose work is as authoratative and objective as any history of the war can be...." Mathews, an eyewitness to the war, cites Thomas twenty-four times in the index to the book and praises it in other passages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GenghisTheHun (talk • contribs) 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
GenghisTheHun 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]
Cecil Eby has written at least two books on the war. I have them both, but I only purchased the second book last week and I haven't had time to read it. In his work on the International Brigade, Between the Bullet and the Lie, American Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War, Eby states on p. 323 "The best general study of the Spanish Civil War is Hugh Thomas' The Spanish Civil War.... His second book that I have not yet had a chance to read, is The Siege of the Alcazar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GenghisTheHun (talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
GenghisTheHun 00:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]
I have an extensive library on the Spanish Civil War and started to review it when I started working on the various articles and edits that I have done on this site. If anyone wants more citations, I shall provide them.
I have no illusions that I am going to convince anyone. I am quite familiar with academic politics and I have discovered in my short time on Wikipedia, about 4-5 weeks, that the politics of this site are quite similar. There is a huge "Old Boy" network and lots of point of view politics here. There appears to be a large happy group that sends valentines to each other and pin medals on each other's user page. Hilarious.
I had hoped for better but at my age, I should have known better. Some editor posts a delete and immediately we have about half a dozen deletes from people who obviously have never read much about the Spanish Civil War. I doubt few of them ever cracked the cover of Hugh Thomas' work or Professor Jackson or Gerald Brennan or anyone else.
I liken this to a modern bonfire of knowledge that Savonarola or Dr. Goebbels would have throughly approved. You can do this virtual burning of knowledge, but I would be hopeful that truth and knowledge would somehow carry through.
GenghisTheHun 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]
Riotboy81 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a 1967 Set of Enclyclopaedia Britannica and looked up this controversy. No article in that work exists on the Spanish Civil War, but in the general article, Spain, history, volume 20, page 1108, we find this quotation:
"On both sides the war was marked, especially in the early stages, by a ruthlessness that astounded the world. Churches were burned and desecrated and public religious observances forbidden throughout Republican Spain; ten bishops, and many thousands of priests, religious and devout members of the laity were murdered in cold blood, for no political activity or crime."
Also in the bibliography, p. 1116, as authority for the 19th and 20th Centuries, yep, there is "H. S. Thomas, The Spanish Civil War New York (1961)." Another of my sources, Professor Jackson is also noted in the citation.
Let's examine the question of criticism of "weasel words," so beloved by certain editors of this august web site. The good gray Britannica staff and editors approved these words in that short quotation: "ruthlessness," "astounded," "desecrated," "murdered," "cold blood," and perhaps we could argue about a couple more.
This language is so good that I plan to include it in the article if I can get it by the politburo.
GenghisTheHun 14:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In current Britannica's article on Spanish Civil War [9] Hugh Thomas and his The Spanish Civil War are still listed in Additional Reading. -- Vision Thing -- 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to respond to the criticism that the article relies heavily on Hugh Thomas. I hate to make this startling revelation to that obviously erudite comment, but the bulk of the literature on the Spanish Civil War is in SPANISH. General histories in English are harder to find.
In any event, after Franco died, and the ban against Thomas' book was lifted in Spain, it was translated into Spanish, and is now a Spanish standard on the conflict.
GenghisTheHun 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]
n current Britannica's article on Spanish Civil War [10] Hugh Thomas and his The Spanish Civil War are still listed in Additional Reading. -- Vision Thing -- 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GenghisTheHun 20:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article duplicates the purpose of Pilot (Gilmore Girls) but not the content. Since this is nearly worthless and orphaned, seems like the better one to delete. As far as I can tell, this doesn't meet a speedy criterion, although it seems like it should; sorry if it's my mistake. Deltopia 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by Prodego as CSD G12. WjBscribe 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was written as: Self-promotion. Seraphim Whipp 02:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOT#INFO (Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. It may arguably be original research also. Note: please place this on lists-related deletions. YechielMan 03:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Saving Private Ryan. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) this is an article about a single scene from a movie and has no notability on it's own. 2) the 'battle' is entirely fictional and does not exist outside of the movie in question 3) the movie has its own article. 4) this is basically a line-by-line novelization of the movie scene and as such constitutes a copyright violation. --Lepeu1999 03:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#INFO. I return to my favorite AFD argument, and one of the first I ever used on these pages: if we had an article on every city and town about all its roads and streets, the size of Wikipedia would spiral out of control. If we won't have them all, we should not have any. YechielMan 03:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire list is unsourced speculation, does not appear fixable. Jay32183 04:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Daniel Bryant 07:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the article has removed three times, without comment, notability and reference tags. There are no sources for any of the information in the article. Fails WP:ATT and possibly fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 04:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Daniel Bryant 02:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability. Article is incompatable with WP:BIO because of the complete lack of reliable secondary sources. Not to mention the article is completely WP:OR. Sefringle 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anon IP removed prod tag. This is a non-notable subject, this is indiscriminate information, and this is largely just a collection of news reports. No need to merge — all notable information is already at Baltimore#Crime. No need to redirect — title is too specific for anyone to search for. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content is original research; while the essay looks great, it, in effect, violates WP:NOR, and as such should be deleted in its present form --Mhking 05:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
from- ====User Talk: Forest Farming - The Ecosystem Approach to Forest Management==== This is not vandalism, please read as supporting documentation for the article.
Here is an additional forest farm (yes, another one of "US") website to check out: http//www.highdesertnet.com/morninghill/
There are quite a few forest farmers out here and we have a forest farm association. Following is a letter by Orville camp exerpt from
The Forest Farm Management Journal: (journal is hardcopy only, not available online at present.
Dear Forest Manager,
Management of our forests has become one of the most controversial issues of this century. Many species are now extinct or in danger of becoming so. The controversial spotted owl, for example, is only one of many species dependent on ancient forests which are rap idly being eliminated. People are concerned. Our social and eco nomic well-being is at stake.
Forest management practices continue to deplete our forests. As a result, opposition to these practices has become intense. Many are desperately working to save what little remains of the ancient forests by having them placed into wilderness for future generations.
On one side the traditionalists want to continue converting forests into tree farms. On the other side, environmentalists want all of the forests preserved. While both may serve some immediate needs, neither seem to have a long term solution on how to manage and sustain the forest ecosystem so that it can continue to provide our many dif ferent needs.
Most timber management pro grams, for short term economic rea sons, are based on the clearcut con cept. Clearcuts are typically done in one or two steps. They are called "clearcuts" if everything is removed in one step, "seed tree cutting," "shel terwood cutting," or "selective cutting" if done in two or more steps.
Who do you know who's able to sustain either the forest or himself using clearcutting practices? The truth is, probably no one. Most businesses keep track of what is happening to their "net worth" as a measure of their success. However, many foresters prescribe clearcutting which reduces the net worth of that forest to zero. Even the value of the land itself is often re duced because of the reduction in potential for productivity. They then try to measure their success by the number of trees they plant. Regard less of how many trees planted, or survival success, the net worth of that forest is still relatively close to zero. If the forest was one of old growth, it will be several hundred years at best before the some values can be ob tained.
The main cause of the management problem is a result of not recog nizing the forest as an ecosystem of all species and ages where each are dependent on the other in some way as we are upon them. This body of living things also has a natural system of checks and balances which keeps it healthy. The sec ond cause of the problem, as a result of the above, is in failing to select the right individuals for har vest so that all species' needs can continue to be met.
Proposed solutions to forest management problems typically call for either dividing it up, or eliminating unwanted parts, to serve special interests .. Since all parts of the forest ecosystem are interconnected and interdependent, neither of these solutions are good ones.
There is now an alternative for those who support management of the forest as an ecosystem. Mid way between just growing and har vesting trees, on one hand, and maintaining a do-not-touch wilderness on the other, the Forest Farm Association offers a new meaning to the term forestry. The Forest Farm Association is comprised of forest managers who support and practice a middle-of-the-road approach.
If you are interested in practicing forest management in an environmentally sound manner, or want to learn more about it and also help educate others, please join the Forest Farm Association. Your contribution is needed and very much appreciated.
Sincerely, Orville Camp
submitted User: jeanniekendrickJeannie kendrick 21:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic, completely unsourced, full of redundancies, generally it's a mess. Painezor TC 06:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable store, possible advertising Stlemur 06:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect. Daniel Bryant 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advert for a non-notable nightclub, with little or no salvageable content once non-neutral statements removed. Orderinchaos78 06:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. - Bobet 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly non-notable Stlemur 06:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced bio of a living person with negative facts, possibly hoax Alex Bakharev 06:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Professional poker player. Speedy deletions were overturned on review, so the discussion now moves here. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 06:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Are you guys joking, this guy is at the forefront of one of the most popular games in the world. Just because some people do not consider someone or somthing important doesnt mean others dont. He is one of the biggest winners in online poker history and tons of people would love to know more about him due to his HSP appearance.
Keep Also Phil Ivey can play Brian 300/600 NL HU whenever he wants. I'm sure that is enough money for Phil, so maybe he's not playing because Brian is good.
Keep Also Otto Phil Ivey can play Brian HU for 60k on Full Tilt Poker whenever he wants, there is a reason he rarely does. If you delete Brian's entry there are several other entries that should be deleted.
Keep Whether I consider basketball or chess to be notable activities is not important, what is important is that a substantial number of people do. The online poker community is quite large, and Brian Townsend is one of the most well-known online poker pros.MikeThicke
Keep If you don't know that this is one of the biggest names in online poker, then you should not be voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBS2007 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Mere use of a term in print does not remove the WP:NOR issue. Avi 07:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save it - note changes to text and sourcing to address OR; can be expanded as more sources appear. --MBHiii 15:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, redirect to Dixie Mafia which needs the references. --MBHiii 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
W.r.t. the SYN issue, "comparing and contrasting" are stock in trade for this kind of writing, and a separate and disparate use is certainly a contrast worth noting. That's all. --MBHiii 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SYN, "that precise analysis (A+B=C expressed by the author) must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia."
In the Smith and Jones case, the author analyzed what Jones did (A) in light of some standard the author chose (B) to assert Smith may have been wrong about Jones (C) without citing a souce who agrees with the analysis. He takes A from one source, B from another, and asserts C on his own.
But here, there is no "Conclusion C." What are you saying are the A+B=C? If you assert I imply C, first of all that's not in WP:SYN, and if you do so on the basis of two different meanings of a term sitting on the same page, you'd better not read any dictionaries, your head might explode from possibilities.
Finally, there is nothing I "say in the article ... that connects a traditional and ongoing criminal enterprise to The Southern Mafia in the Senate." - Mr.Z-man(above) It's you, making it up.
Note, wording changes to be less of a DICDEF and focus more on the two, separated subjects - no HOAX. --MBHiii 03:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere between SYN and COPYVIO must be room to write. Note, new rewriting so as not to cut-and-paste. Another more direct example of Dixie Mafia = Southern Mafia has been cited. It's amazing to me that, still, you don't believe it exists, so I added the case about which Hume wrote. --MBHiii 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note 1. removal of key erroneously cited blog ref and extraneous quotations from fiction 2. addition of areas of operation and summaries of operation from key refs cited. BTW on the discussion page, you said "The issue is whether such a thing as a 'Southern Mafia' actually exists." I hope by now all doubt's removed by this article. --MBHiii 03:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Richard 07:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Xiner[13]. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail notability and verifiability guidelines. Few ghits (or alternate spelling}, and sources are from myspace. NMChico24 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talib_Talib
I do not agree that this article “Appears to fail notability and verifiability guidelines” or is not notable. The article refers to this person whether myspace or not. The link is audible and clear on what he believes and organizes according to his beliefs which are proven in his (audible-audio) lectures which are placed on myspace. Who said myspace was not notable or verifiable? Myspace is reliable. Myspace has rules and criteria and if someone writes a page on myspace and it is not correct, notable, verifiable, offensive or “libel” it will be removed from myspace. And myspace is also affiliated with CNN. Myspace is notable and verifiable(as everyone from political figures, political organizations, businesses to artist have a page there) and there are many “wikipedia pages” which uses or refers to myspace as a source. Do not be slanted in your view and misquote verifiability or notability. How notable and verifiable do you get, this guys actual lectures and speeches are on (audio) on myspace and the actual existence of his page and speeches (being there) is a very verifiable and notable source. I have also found flyers and postings of his lectures and speeches as well by going to the page. --Talib_Talib 19:24, 18 March 2007
The result was redirect to Yellowstone National Park. Daniel Bryant 02:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A stub of two sentences- a non-notable nature trail. Very few edits, and no other articles linking to it. CattleGirl talk | sign! | review me 07:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Hathorn 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Daniel Bryant 07:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this biographical article is non-notable. There are few sources to justify this article other than the one crime report provided by the Evening Standard.-- Zleitzen(talk) 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN open source search engine. Article links to news articles on Krugle, but that is a completely different website. JLaTondre 15:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to satisfy WP:BIO. Unless I'm missing something, he seems to be a fairly obscure cartoonist; who has won only a few awards, all of which seem to be relatively minor; and the most notable thing about him seems to be his involvement in a very brief controversy about one of his cartoons at a college newspaper. Purifiedwater 20:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 15:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See first nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Kramer (politician) 1st nomination. Delete Non-notable and not sourced. GreenJoe 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Shimeru 08:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial information that neither needs its own article nor a section in Air Force One. Besides, the only notable thing on the page is on the film of the same name. SeizureDog 09:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Prod removed. Dweller 09:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR, a dicdef, and a copyright violation to top everything off (compare to here). I'm not even sure if the band is notable either... SeizureDog 10:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as vandalism. - Bobet 17:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable, this just may be a hoax, well, I can't find anything that verifies this, anywhere. Gelreoz-0 10:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google search turns up nothing. Creator is almost certainly a sockpuppet of banned user Lyle123; he's been creating these types of hoax animated film articles for several months now. He also created The Wild II (which had been deleted twice) under a separate nickname. That article is also up for deletion over here. Esn 10:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Wizardman 00:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason summed up with one word: "And?" Another non-notable school. Edit: Article has since greatly improved. It should not take a AFD to make an article keepable though. The people creating school articles need to get in the habit of establishing notability well before it's nominated for deletion. SeizureDog 10:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed; a non-copyvio version was in article history; reverted to it. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 16:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is directly copied from product website TS Astra22 10:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 02:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content-free article on an unpublished demo single by a non-notable band Iridescenti 10:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kernel_NickM 7:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
To: Ozzykhan 14, It was never deleted (as far to my knowledge)! PS Criticizing radicals is in no way an "attack" anyone. Historianism 07:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Shimeru 08:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advert for non-notable software. Survived a previous VFD but the standards have changed since then while the article has not. MER-C 11:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. There is an important distinction to be made here between the book and the possible seccessionist movements themselves, in that nothing has been advanced here to show that the former is notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a book review for a book which was briefly published by American Eagle Publications, which is hardly what one would call a mainstream publishing house, and is now an ebook. No evidence of any scholarly discussion of this book that I can see, the closest we get to a claim of notability is this: In about 2001 there was a made-for-TV-movie about a Civil War II that started in 2020 with a Chicano revolt in the Southwest that appeared on a cable channel with a scenario very similar to but not based directly on Chittum's book. Er, right, so it was not made into a film then. The Wikipedia article is obviously written from personal knowledge, not a distillation of the cited sources (because there aren't any). Guy (Help!) 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable/non-notable children's book. One single solitary hit on Google search for an Amazon page which gives little info. Delete Spondoolicks 11:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bio article with no real assertion of notability. Drat (Talk) 11:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article deals with a minor company, Oshvision, that no longer exists. During its existence, it produced a few computer games, and was run by two teenagers. Previous versions of the article (over eight months ago) were incoherent, there were issues with copyright (see my comment below) and I speedily deleted some of them back then. However, as I recently found out, the creator of the article perceived this as censorship and still thinks Wikipedia should have an article about Oshvision. I told him I'd restore it, and properly nominate it for deletion, so the whole community could have a say in it and he could contribute to the discussion himself. Last year, it didn't meet our company inclusion criteria, and these days there are still no secondary sources that could ever serve as a source for the article. JoanneB 11:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reciently updated the artical, and I dont really understand why certain copyrights were mentioned??? as all the content belongs to me anyway? and if I the owner wish to distribute my images of my companys logos on wiki, like other major companies then its oK??? Contact me how i can upload images which wont get deleted because they got copyright on them?
Oshvision 13:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been transwikied to Wikitonary and no longer belongs in Wikipedia. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 11:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Daniel Bryant 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40 unique Googles, none of which appear to be non-trivial external sources. No sources cited. Possible smerge to Amazon, but probably better to wait until it's out of beta. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge(d) and redirect. Thanks to Black Falcon for actually doing the merge; it was the consensus from here (hence my close), so cheers for that. Daniel Bryant 07:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A football league that never actually existed? Warrants a one-line mention in af2 at most, but does it even warrant that? EliminatorJR Talk 12:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Wikipedia is indeed about knowledge, but it's about knowledge which is encyclopedic. Once the cited criteria are passed (and the site is no longer "arguably the best" but is in fact said to be such by someone), this is the kind of article which can be re-created. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it passes WP:WEB. Traffic Rank for cc-comp.org: 393,862 from alexa.com, I went there and it said "9 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes" which isn't much. The Negotiator 13:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is CC-DucK. The CC-Comp page is still under construction from several members of CC-Comp. It is a private project that only several people know atm. We intend to finish it up asap, before letting the members of CC-Comp Forum know about this Wikipedia page. With 7k+ Members on our forums, I am certain that this Wikipedia page would be able to generate hits. CC-Comp IS an extremely active forum, and perhaps you went to check the 'hits' at the wrong time. So, please be patient, this Wikipedia page would be done soon. CC-DucK 21:51, 18 March 2007 (GMT+8)
Nope, we just felt that since we are arguably the best trading site of our game for that particular realm, we should have a Wikipedia page. I believe I mistook your 'hits' thingy, as I thought you meant that this page should be closed as no one was reading it. --CC-DucK 22:19, 18 March 2007 (GMT+8)
I think I understand what you mean now. Give us some time, we'll discuss and let you know asap. --CC-DucK 22:42, 18 March 2007 (GMT+8)
Well, we just wanted a place to put the history of CC-Comp (Which is being worked on regardless). A lot of people ask about it. I thought wikipedia was about information, I didn't realize that only certain information about websites are allowed. And we get about 10k unique visits a month or so. --TheCaptainJS 8:57, 23 March 2007 (GMT+5)
The result was redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. I'm deleting the hoax revisions. Grandmasterka 10:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this article as unreferenced, hoping that there might be some reliable sources. It looks like the references there now are copied from Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song) since I don't see any mention of "Serious" in them. In fact one of them, SwedishCharts.com, lists the song as only being on the album and doesn't have it as a single. The single cover is also unsourced, so no proof of the single's existence there. ShadowHalo 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Andrew4793 t c 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leesamio 02:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Shimeru 08:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Autobio. by subject User:TraustiV - self promotional, only edits are this and promotion of his book. He may be notable, but that should be determined by others. Vsmith 13:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable venue incapable of independent verification. It was listed for speedy deletion by a new pages patroller, but as that has been disputed, I have brought it here for a broader discussion. Orderinchaos78 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, it seems that may not be enough to justify an article. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per author request and arguably as attack page. All right: Nuklear is the only author of the article, they now request its deletion, and that is probably for the better. Given the weird nonsense they are now posting here and in the article ("The founder of Hochemicals© is the overall master of the totalitarian dictatorship regime"), the content is probably not exactly reliable. Someone else may of course write a new article about this topic. Sandstein 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. The generalized totalitarian dictator leader, the Führer himself) is creating his own webdomain. Such classified topics should not be available on a *public* website.--Nuklear 14:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Infact I was on a secure line with the ambassador to the U.S. thismorning and he suggested this to me.[reply]
This page is mostly the result of one editors work having first been built 13:38, 6 October 2006 by user:Nuklear, who has now made 984 of the users total 1118 [21] edits to this article. At first glance it looks like a well referenced article on a topic that you know nothing about. Further reading brings statements like *The founder of Hochemicals is the generalized master of the totalitarian dictaorship regime. which the just yesterday was changed to *The founder of Hochemicals is the generalized master of the totalitarian dictatorship regime. by user:Nuklear [22] the article does contain some information that is correct and can be validated easily in Google as Ohmefentanyl really is a synthetic opioid [23] Some Google results on (totally synthetic opioid Ohmefentanyl) are "interesting" to say the least. I placed a ((subst:uw-vandalism3)) on the editors talk page yesterday [24] I could not find a proper place in Wikipedia:Vandalism to bring this, and the article would appear to be a candidate for WP:AfD so I bring it here. Jeepday 14:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are u talking about dummy, I own this page. I invented it. Furthermore I have done ALL of the contributions, I just wasnt logged in like 20% of the time that I wasnt ULing images. Trace my IP & u will see ;-) Also if you want to make a generous capital donation to his lordship, please do through my paypal account on ebay.--Nuklear 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. - Bobet 17:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable, no sources cited, no evidence there is even a book out in 2008 with this title, surely it's a hoax, I'm probably wrong, but hey. Anyhow, I doubt that such a book would even exist! SambaDiJaneiro2314 15:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep - frivolous nomination Newyorkbrad 16:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spamvertisement, not notable. Olxahorno 15:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant promotion by author. Too new for notability criteria, pub.date Apr 30, 2007. Vsmith 15:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn as a reference has been added -- however, the unsourced version of the article, which leveled very serious accusations against its subject without any references whatsoever, should indeed have been speedily deleted. John254 17:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is comprised entirely of unreferenced negative information, and thus qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G10 and WP:BLP. However, the speedy deletion request was removed by an administrator. John254 15:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was revert to disambigation version and redirect Just Like You (disambiguation) to Just Like You. Pan Dan 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already an article for Keyshia Cole's sophomore album. Dj Rapmasta 16:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. No arguments for deletion presented, including the nomination. Discussion re: merging can proceed at the article talk page. Shimeru 08:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with United States Air Force SU182 16:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non neutral mini-biography, with no indication given as to notability and no details of alleged works Iridescenti 16:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One line biography of apparently obscure individual, no indication as to notability - possible speedy delete Iridescenti 16:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, deletion rationale invalid per deletion policy. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the text in the article, the institution is involved in immoral activity. If it is true, it does not deserve to be an article under any category of educational institution in any standard encyclopedia. Plus I think, a bunch of ill information about anything is not a very nice article for an encyclopedia, it destroys the overall usual expectation for the readers. I think proving someone innocent or guilty is not wikipedia's responsibility. So the article should be deleted to avoid any controvertial content Pointchair 15:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as copyvio. –Llama mantalkcontribs 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No context, do not know what author is talking about Redconverse 17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page, no indication of notability Iridescenti 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - creator-admitted hoax. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the nicely photo-shopped image (details), this article is patent nonsense. It does not even qualify to be called an hoax. -- RHaworth 17:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Bobet 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted previously (on the 1st nomination) on the basis of being non-notable. (In the interest of openness, I should mention I made that 1st nomination) It was subsequently recreated. Somebody else almost immediately nominated it for deletion a 2nd time, but the discussion seemed to focus more on if Andrew actually helped make RuneScape or not (which he did), and the nomination failed. This is therefore the 3rd nomination.
I am nominating this article for deletion, as it appears to be original research (see WP:OR), and also because I believe according to wikipedia guidelines it is 'not notable' (see WP:BIO)
Justification: With regards to the 'notability' part I don't dispute that this person helped make RuneScape which is a significant game. However reading WP-BIO it seems clear that whether something is notable enough to appear in wikipedia is more based on whether other reputable publications deemed the person notable (by writing about them). In particular read the primary criterion of WP:BIO. I believe the reason for this is because that then determines if sufficient reliable information is available about a given person to actually write the article. (without original research)
Unfortunately there is lack of solid 3rd party articles about this person. As such this page has ended up COMPLETELY unsourced, (original research). This in turn means it contains numerous factual innacuracies, and a bizarre mix of trivia as a result. It's certainly not a good biography. I can't see any verifiable facts that aren't already on the jagex article. It doesn't actually cover the key points of the persons life. (just a weird mix of things he did at 17)
I should mention that I am aware that there are articles that mention this person *in passing*, but those are articles are about Jagex or RuneScape, (which already have pages), not actually about this person. I.e they aren't biographical articles. The ONLY article I can find at all which is actually about the person (as opposed to Jagex) is the very brief paragraph in the sunday times, but that is referenced on the Jagex page anyway, and doesn't contain enough info to actually make a wikipedia page.
I therefore propose this article is redirected to Jagex, as all the verifiable facts (and their sources), are already listed on there anyway. Runefire 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S: Since first posting, I have reworded the above slightly, to repeat itself less, and hopefully be clearer. I have removed the comment about vandalism, as you are right that's not relevant. I hope that's allowed. Thanks
Reply to the above. I did read the entire 2nd nomination, and check every one of the sources. But as I originally stated they didn't actually seem to be about the person, and so didn't really provide facts to base the article on. (I.e they weren't biographical - With the exception of the sunday times one I already mentioned.) You mention WO:BIO#Special Cases. But the very first sentance of that section reads "The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person". Obviously that isn't the case here. I was actually originally just going to strip out the info that wasn't verifiable, but then I realized that's the entire article. Hence the AFD instead. Thanks Runefire 18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I will userfy this, to Wedudley or anyone else, upon request at my talk page. Daniel Bryant 07:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notablity not given, only reference is to MySpace. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mess of original research and unnecessary/pointless trivia with absolutely no sources--SUIT양복 18:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep.--Carabinieri 23:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in her article suggests that she passes WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 18:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19 G-hits, zero external coverage, no reliable sources. PROD contested by article creator. FCYTravis 19:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Band" is non-notable and does not come close to meeting any criteria of WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO as far as I can tell, so an individual song by them certainly does not need an article. 27 Google hits for "catnip peddlers" and many of them are Wikipedia mirrors. "Sources" quoted in the article are not reliable. Prod tag was removed. Big Smooth 19:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another "in popular culture" section that was split out into its own "article" instead of being pruned, as it should have been. There is nothing encyclopaedic about "references to <randomly chosen film> in popular culture", so a list of same is defintely not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article full of POV and a self-reference website quoted as source on subject of no notability. Aditya Kabir 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced, WP:CRYSTAL The artist formerly known as Sceptre 20:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to List of Code Geass episodes. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a plot summary, delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. Phirazo 20:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. The policy concern, WP:ATT, has been addressed, and it appears to pass WP:NOTE's standard as well. Shimeru 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about a very short lived software project, which is just basically a port of a browser engine to a platform that hardly anyone has heard of. Non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 20:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't mean short-lived as in "won't last long" or "dead", I meant it as in "only been around for a matter of months". And notability is generally held to mean third-parties have talked about it. Can you point to anyone talking about it aside from yourselves, or forum postings? For people who are interested in browsers, it is only notable in that "WebCore" has been ported to another platform, which suggests it should just be a short mention on the "WebCore" page, not an entire article. AlistairMcMillan 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW DanielM you are the editor with the most edits to MorphOS and you started the article in question here. Would you mind telling us whether you have any involvement in either MorphOS or the Sputnik browser? AlistairMcMillan 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Henriok voted KEEP on the article's discussion page. DanielM 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're just arguing over words now. Henriok's position ought to be included if we know what it is. Please stop with your lecturing tone. That's just your opinion that the article is being lead towards its deletion. DanielM 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC) PS: From where did you get my name?[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. AlistairMcMillan 05:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what he wrote at my talk page:
The temptation to be sarcastic is almost too much to bear.
* Step 1) Type "daniel morphos" into Google. * Step 2) There is no step two.
Mystery solved. Now, if you don't mind, could you please cite a reliable source that establishes the notability of the Sputnick browser. AlistairMcMillan 02:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
AmiGR and Henriok already said on the article's talkpage why they believe it is notable:
Keep - This web browser is notable since it's the only really modern for MorphOS, it's based on the second most popular Open Source webb-browser source (WebCore) and it's under active development. -- Henriok 19:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It is notable in that it is the first working browser on AmigaOS-related platforms (MorphOS currently, will be ported to AmigaOS4 and others) to support modern web technologies like CSS and reasonable JS. AMiGR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.96.77.103 (talk • contribs) 19:51, March 18, 2007 (UTC)
I concur with that. The statement in the article about modernity incl. CSS support is sourced to a computer news portal website with editorial controls over news releases, as well as to a print magazine. DanielM 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, this very notable web browser, is the article going to just be one paragraph? Can someone provide a screenshot (keeping established conventions in mind)? Is "WebKit was ported to MorphOS" the only thing that can be said about it? Really, if you think the thing is notable enough for a whole article, surely you can say more than one paragraph about it? AlistairMcMillan 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AlistairMcMillan, you've now done two things that I've never had done to me in almost two years of editing Wikipedia. First, you've posted my real name. This after Googling my username and the subject of an article that I edited, going through the results until you found the Daniel you were looking for, in some sort of detective effort to find a conflict of interest for this, an article about a browser programmed by one guy and given away at no charge. Second, you have modified a comment I made above, to draw a line through the name AmiGR.
It doesn't help me to tell you not to post my real name again, you've already done it. I will tell you not to modify comments that I have made. You may rebut them immediately after, but leave my comments for the Wikipedia record as I wrote them. I have restored my comment to the way I posted it and undid your damage to it. If you change it again, I guess I will see about complaining to an admin about you.
I am astounded at the level of personal antipathy you have towards this, an innocuous article about a free browser for an alternative computer platform. You are sarcastic and rude and seem determined to throw stuff at it until it falls down. I can't imagine it is actually about this article and can only surmise you are misdirecting your negative feelings about something else. DanielM 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know something, if you had devoted this much time and energy to improving the article it might be something worth keeping. The four sources you have come up with are all to do with the Amiga community, no sources from outside that community. The three web sources all pretty much just say "someone ported WebKit to MorphOS and here is a brief list of features" and nothing else. The magazine source does have an interview, but we can't see that to determine if there is anything in there that might be interesting: for example is it just a direct port or has the developer added any new feature like the Nokia guys did with their port.
About your name. I am genuinely sorry that I revealed your real name. Given that you use your first name and the first initial of your second I didn't think for a second that you were trying to hide your identity. But the fact is I asked you whether your had any involvement with the project, when I already knew you had some contact with Genesi hoping you would say something like "yeah I helped out at a booth for free a couple of days but I'm only a user" or something, not the cryptic "I have no financial interest" answer. For what it is worth, I genuinely believe you that you have no involvement in either MorphOS or Sputnik, aside from being an interested user. And, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we have any policy about protecting editors identities. Wikipedia:Anonymity is almost a blank page and our Wikipedia:Privacy policy basically says don't use your real name if you want to be anonymous. You might be thinking of WP:BLP but that is about biography articles not editors themselves.
Which all doesn't change the fact that the only way in which this software is notable is that (a) WebKit has been ported to another platform and (b) MorphOS now has a browser. Notes to be added to other articles, not enough for a whole article itself. AlistairMcMillan 03:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, no sources given to meet conditional keeps. Daniel Bryant 06:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article on a privately-owned brewery. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is not notable by herself per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 20:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. --Wafulz 22:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence incomprehensible entry, unable even to expand as it gives no indication as to context Iridescenti 20:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Merging or moving can be discussed at the article's talk page. Shimeru 08:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was already deleted last week, it's not notable and it's a copy cut from their website [30]. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 21:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was destroy. Destruction (disambiguation) will be moved back here. --Coredesat 06:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De-prodded by an IP with no rationale. This is a dicdef and never will be more than a dicdef. The original disambiguation page was unilaterally moved to Destruction (disambiguation), and I think that page has the relevant history and should be moved back after deletion (which is why I didn't do a C&P move).
Seems like there should be a speedy reason for this, but ((db-move)) doesn't seem to apply because it's not a redirect. SnowFire 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by ChrisGriswold. ◄Zahakiel► 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably speedy delete, patent nonsense Iridescenti 21:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not done with the page, i just saved it in case my computer crashed.Bridge 26 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this article apparently spun it off from Big Crunch. It's just one of those "popular culture" articles that we've come to know and love here at AFD. It's full of statements which are unsourced and uninformative. YechielMan 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by ChrisGriswold. MER-C 08:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a vanity page, nothing to indicate notability of this group - not tagged for speedy delete in the unlikely event that this is a genuine institution. Iridescenti 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:NOR. Seems like an essay. Fisherjs 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per nominator's second thoughts and suggestion of further article development. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability Tim.bounceback - TaLk 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this article makes a useful contribution to the documentation of Black British writers and writing. This writer is well known on the British poetry and spoken word scene and has published several books (as the Peepal Tree site confirms). This wikipedia entry is a good and useful reference for those of us who are researching into contemporary literature, particularly as contemporary poets and poetry tends to be ignored outside specialist publications. So I strongly urge that this entry remains. 62.7.150.93 12:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A variation on the 69 position involving menstruation. Neologism, probably a local variation - no related Google hits at all, no sources, no way to verify this has ever been performed by anyone. Dcoetzee 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New request for Deletion reason: i dont see any point in having theese articles surrounding peoples races. i mean their are just to many arguments over theese. just as the black people,white and caucasians. I will vote for Deletion.--Matrix17 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Coredesat 07:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only current sources consist of the subject's own (partisan) web site, an arguably partisan news source, and a blog. Sourcing doesn't meet the stringent criteria required by WP:BLP Shirahadasha 23:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep maddening nomination. Normally I don't care for WP:SNOW but it fits here. Controversy is not a reason to delete. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for Deletion Reason: How is this article notable? its about black people like it is a sort of animal or something "special" atleast many people her thinks so when you look at the discussion page. I think this should be deleted ,i also think its strange that it is a "massajman" as a rawmodel for black people and then celebrities and other more notable persons on the White people section. How is a massajman notable? lets here more opinions.should it be kept or deleted? --Matrix17 17:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Very Strong Delete I'm tired of all the edit wars and complaining on the talk page. I worked very hard to make sure everything was referenced and make sure all view points were heard, but people are never happy. If you look up the word black in the dictionary it is defined as a member of a dark skinned race especially one of African descent, and yet people are complaining that race is being mentioned in the article. It's like trying to write an article on Chritianity without being allowed to mention religion. One person keeps saying that even 4 year olds know what a black person is. If so, why the need for an article? There isn't much encyclopedic you can say about this topic that doesn't offend people and create edit wars, and most encyclopedias don't include this as a subject. They may include articles about the African diasporas, or skin color, or race, but not about black people. In general I don't think the wikipedia process works well on controversial topics because controversial topics attract people with extreme view points who are trying to push an agenda & such articles are always swinging from one extreme to another depending on which side become more numerous and more determined. Wikipedia works much better for less politically charged topics where editors can work together instead of against one another. In short how can you write an article on black people if editors can't even agree who black people are. You have some editors claiming only people of sub-Saharan African ancestry are black, you have other editors saying Oceanic ancestry is also black, and you have still others saying people from India are black. And don't even get me started on whether Afro-multiracials are black. Iseebias 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Very Strong Delete I also VOTE for deletion. i think as iseebias thinks that it is to many people getting upset and angry on this article. and also on the white and caucasian articles. i dont think you can place PEOPLE in certain categories according to race. I dont see my dark coloured friend as my "black friend" but as only my friend. this article also has many strange opinions in it. and the massaj man is actually not representative for all people. so i say this article should be gone.Their are to many people thinking it shouldnt be deleted if you look at the discussion page to,and the Vanuatu man making food or somthing with a stick is just pure racism in the worst way.--Matrix17 19:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I dont see any of my friend as blacks or white for me people are people. with different personalities. my friend who originaly is from africa dont cook herr food with sticks and hunts in the woods with arrows and dont wear masai clothes like this article seemsto point out. I feel sorry that you cant see that my friend.--Matrix17 20:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Thats just the racist comments i mean. Do you actually think all africans eats with sticks? haha All this articles do is to cause arguments like this stupid arguments due to that people get hurt because of the feeling of being stuck into a certain category by a page written by all people.the vanuatu man making fire with a stick is the worst i have ever seen. pointing out people who is black as fools. my god.--Matrix17 20:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what I am trying to illustrate is cultural relativity. What may offend one person may not be offensive to others. If you only have a western view, then there is a vast array of things that will be offensive. There are many people who still live a pre modern existence. to some any mention of them is racist. to others its just a way of life. but we digress. my point is if society sees black and white, why should we pretend not to. for example most social economic indicators still show differences between black and white.Muntuwandi 20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its still wrong, anyway you put it.and just makes unnecssary arguments on the discussion page,Delete page.--Matrix17 20:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An encyclopedia should not delete information and historical accounts on what has been and what is. This and other similar article are not putting a value to a certain skin color or "race" but only describing the cultural heritage and history of mankind - with all the bad sides to it. If this article is deleted then we're on a slipping slope and it could lead to historical revisionism. Closing the eyes won't make any suggested problems disappear - only enlightenment can take care of that. Strangnet 21:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment the asian people article has been nominated for speedy keep. Muntuwandi 22:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. AfD is not the place to have a "conversation" about what to do with the page, there's a perfectly usable Talk page for that. Additionally, I'd suggest that the nominator read over the deletion policy before creating further AfDs, as "prevention of an edit war" isn't a good reason to suggest deletion of an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for Deletion Reason: How is caucasian race notable? how can people make an article on caucasians as a race? I dont see any point in having an editor war over this pages who obviously are quite discriminating in one way. I think its time that we have a actuall vote on if we should keep or delete this sort of pages.So have your say. --Matrix17 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep See: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And see: Encyclopedia. "An encylopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." How is caucasian race notable? how can people make an article on caucasians as a race? Read the article. Lukas19 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:i just referre to the answer to lukas from the white people deletion argument. I think their is cause for atleast a conversation ove rhow to do with this page. pointing out people as races.like in the old days.--Matrix17 20:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An encyclopedia should not delete information and historical accounts on what has been and what is. This and other similar articles are not putting a value to a certain skin color or "race" but only describing the cultural heritage and history of mankind - with all the bad sides to it. If this article is deleted then we're on a slippery slope and it could lead to historical revisionism, much worse than the proposer is suggesting. Closing the eyes won't make any suggested problems disappear - only enlightenment can take care of that. Strangnet 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. While nominating an article to spare people's feelings is an ostensibly noble aim, it goes against the aim of creating an encyclopedia. Such debate as there is about promoting one agenda over another should be done on the Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for DeletionReason:How is this page notable? Their has been so many hurt feelings and strong reactions to this white people,black people articles. i dont think black people are very pleased with been putting in to a certain category just because they are black, and the same for white people. Their are more people who wants to delete this sort of pages then the opposit, and that is what sthis Keep or delete voting will prove. --Matrix17 20:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the racist way and quite unnecessary way theese articles has been written. i mean is it necessary to have articles on blacks and white people?? i dont think so anyway.--Matrix17 20:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep See: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And see: Encyclopedia. "An encylopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." White people contains lots of information about a subject that is certainly not trivial, due to historical and modern reasons. Lukas19 20:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No you dont have to delete half of the wikipedia work. is just this in particular articles black,white and caucasians and so on people articles that gets so mutch discussions and people GET hurt over them.if you cant see that,then thats you problem--Matrix17 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Its just that sort of comments that maes this pages so unnecessary comments from people who just cant see that people behind the computers reading actually get hurt or atleast upset. like you lukas making fun of a problem that has always existed. the way people always try to categorize eachother.and you making fun of this should be asahmed.--Matrix17 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete: We don't need wikipedia trying to tell us who is white. What the hell does light skin color mean? Light compared to who? What is European ancestry? How much European ancestry and how far back? Europe is just an arbitrary landmass. There's very little genetic about being from Europe in particular and light skin isn't exclusive to Europe anyway. This article contains no real facts just opinions. Does race even exist? If so, I thought caucasians were the race; if so we already have an article about them. An article about white people is just pure nonsense. Iseebias 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An encyclopedia should not delete information and historical accounts on what has been and what is. This and other similar articles are not putting a value to a certain skin color or "race" but only describing the cultural heritage and history of mankind - with all the bad sides to it. If this article is deleted then we're on a slippery slope and it could lead to historical revisionism, much worse than the proposer is suggesting. Closing the eyes won't make any suggested problems disappear - only enlightenment can take care of that. Strangnet 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another page about an "up-and-coming". Fails WP:ATT and runs afoul of WP:COI, has already been speedied as "band vanity". Primary editor is named "Redworm". JuJube 23:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]